Points of Order

Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you have had any indication from the new Leader of the House that he would like to come to the House to make a statement today. Yesterday, an announcement of enormous constitutional significance was slipped out on the television news. I do not know whether Her Majesty was informed, but certainly their lordships' House was not informed, nor were we, that the Government intended to abolish one of the great offices of state. [Hon. Members: "Oh, no!"] Labour Members may groan, but some us care about the historical traditions of our country. If the Government have a proposal to abolish an office that goes back over 1,000 years, surely we should expect assurances in this House today—first, that there will be no attempt at hurried legislation this Session, secondly, that any legislation will be in draft form so that it can be the more properly and seriously considered and, thirdly, that all stages of any such legislation will be taken on the Floor of this House.

Graham Allen: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would you indeed get the new Leader of the House to come to the House—first, to receive congratulations on his new appointment and, secondly, to receive congratulations from Members on this side of the House on fulfilling a commitment from the 1993 Labour party programme to abolish the office of Lord Chancellor?

Michael Connarty: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it in relation to the points that have already been made?

Michael Connarty: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. I, too, would like the Leader of the House to come to the House to explain how Members from Scotland can transact their business in this House properly, given that Scotland will apparently be represented by a Lord in the new constitutional Department that is being set up. That is wholly inappropriate. To whom should I now address the request for a meeting that had been granted by the outgoing Secretary of State for Scotland about redundancies in my constituency?

George Osborne: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Could you guide Members on how departmental questions will operate now? Will there be separate Scottish and Welsh questions, or will they all be bundled together in a set of questions on constitutional affairs? Will the Secretary of State for Transport answer on Scottish issues and the Leader of the House answer on Welsh issues, even though neither of them have executive responsibility for those Departments?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I can understand hon. Members' concerns, but I must inform you that I am not aware of any Minister wishing to come to make a statement to the House at this stage. Should anything change, I will of course advise Members appropriately.
	As to the other point that Members raised, that is a matter for the Departments concerned. The occupant of the Chair has many responsibilities, but they do not extend to that.

Eric Forth: On a different point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that a Government reshuffle is under way today, as it was yesterday. Can you help the House by telling us what will happen in the event that the Minister is reshuffled or called to No. 10 during the debate—not least because amendments have been tabled in her name—or that any other Member, on either side of the House, with an amendment in their name is called by the Prime Minister to serve in his Administration? Would you in that circumstance be prepared to consider suspending the sitting for an appropriate amount of time so that the person involved could answer the phone or go to No. 10, and we could then welcome a new Minister to resume the debate appropriately? May we have your guidance on that, Madam Deputy Speaker?

Michael Connarty: Absolute trivia.

Eric Forth: No, it is not trivia.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I presume that the right hon. Gentleman would like to hear my reply.
	As much as I like to be well prepared, I think that some of the points that Members raised concern matters that we will consider as the morning goes on, should it be necessary. Orders of the Day

Fireworks Bill

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

Clause 1
	 — 
	Introduction

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 40, in page 1, line 9, leave out subsection (2).

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 66, in page 3, line 28 [Clause 5], at end insert—
	'( ) Subsections (1) and (2) shall not apply to class I and class II fireworks.'.

Christopher Chope: The amendment is relevant to the short discussion that we have just had, because it is about ministerial power and how it should be controlled by this House. The amendment would remove from clause 1 the power of the Minister to change the definition of fireworks by regulation rather than by primary legislation. That power goes to the root of the concerns that many people have about the wide scope of the Bill.
	It was clear on Second Reading and in Committee that there is a tension between manufacturers of fireworks, who say that it is impossible to have what we recognise as a firework unless it is manufactured to a specification of 120 dB maximum, and those who buy into the idea that the only way to proceed in this country is to have a limit of 95 dB—a perfectly legitimate view, which I understand is supported by many hon. Members. However, far from clarifying their views, the Government have been fudging the issue. Now we are on Report it is time to hear the Minister make a clear and unequivocal statement of the Government's intentions on definitions of fireworks and the noise limits relating to them.
	The supply of fireworks is governed currently by a British standard on fireworks, BS7114. Regulation 3(1) of the Firework (Safety) Regulations 1997 states:
	"Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4) and without prejudice to regulation 7 below, no person shall supply a category 1 firework, a category 2 firework or a category 3 firework which does not comply with the relevant requirements of Part 2 of BS 7114 when tested in accordance with the appropriate test method (if any) in Part 3 of BS 7114."
	BS7114 classifies fireworks into three specific categories considered suitable for use by the general public and a fourth category suitable only for professional users.
	Category 1 fireworks are suitable for use inside domestic buildings—for most of us, pretty innocuous fireworks. Category 2 fireworks are for outdoor use in relatively confined areas. Many people, especially young people, might regard them as rather boring fireworks. I do not include myself in the category of people that regards them as boring, but they are essentially safe fireworks. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), whom I am delighted to see in his place this morning, has another amendment in the group that would restrict all the regulations in the Bill and prevent them from being applied to fireworks in categories 1 and 2. I support that effort, which is in compliance with common sense and good regulation.Category 3 fireworks are for use in large outdoor spaces, and category 4 are not intended for sale to the general public. Fireworks and assemblies classified as category 1, 2 or 3 must comply with the requirements of BS7114, which is in addition to the legal duty placed on suppliers under the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
	The Bill defines fireworks as being fireworks for the purposes of British standard specifications relating to fireworks published on 30 November 1988, BS7114, to which I have been referring, or any British standard specification replacing it—or what would be fireworks for those purposes if they were intended as a form of entertainment. I should have thought that that definition of fireworks is perfectly adequate for our purposes. Will the Minister explain why the promoter of the Bill and the Government are supporting clause 1(2), which confers a power to change the definition of fireworks?

Eric Forth: I am following my hon. Friend's argument so far, but I hope that at some stage of his analysis he will tell the House why he is not satisfied with the safeguards in clause 2. On this occasion, and rather unusually, the Government have gone a considerable way to reassure us. Although the Secretary of State is given the power to make regulations in clause 1(2), my reading of clause 2 is that it provides detailed safeguards in respect of those regulations. Why is my hon. Friend not satisfied with clause 2, which strikes me as providing a powerful case for giving the Secretary of State the powers that my hon. Friend wishes to delete?

Christopher Chope: I understand my right hon. Friend's view, but he may not have seen a Government-inspired amendment to clause 2 that would delete subsection (2)—a provision inserted by the Minister by agreement in Committee. It is now apparently to be deleted by the promoter and the Government in an amendment. We will have an opportunity to debate the implications later, but it is certainly one of the reasons why I believe that the safeguards in clause 2 are inadequate to control the Secretary of State's powers to define fireworks.

Eric Forth: I am grateful for that, but I hope that my hon. Friend is not going to skip lightly over the other provisions of clause 2, which would remain even if the Minister were to have her way. It talks at length about consultation and other matters. I hope that my hon. Friend will take a balanced view of the problem, rather than simply home in on what the Minister appears to be doing.

Christopher Chope: As my right hon. Friend would expect, I take a balanced view of the problem, but he may not have noticed that clause 2(1) states:
	"The Secretary of State may by regulations . . . make any provision which the Secretary of State considers appropriate . . . for securing that there is no risk that use of fireworks will have the consequences specified in subsection (3)",
	which would give the Secretary of State carte blanche to use that provision to ban all fireworks, or all fireworks other than indoor fireworks. Indeed, that provision could be sufficient to ban even sparklers. Even a sparkler can be heated up and pushed into someone's eye, causing a serious injury, if not death—and the same could be done to a captive animal.
	My right hon. Friend is an expert in saying that the Bill should be examined as a whole rather than in individual parts, but the interaction of clause 2 with the power in clause 1(2) to amend the definition of fireworks should cause hon. Members on both sides of the House to be concerned. The Bill, as I say, gives carte blanche to the Secretary of State to draw up a set of regulations that, when presented to the House, would not be capable of amendment.
	Those of us who have studied, or begun to study, the detail of fireworks legislation know that it is a fiendishly complicated subject. The Minister said on Second Reading that she hoped that the detail of the Bill would be considered at much greater length in Committee than on Second Reading. I have to tell the House, however, that Second Reading took about three hours, and the Committee stage less than two hours. That was not detailed scrutiny of the Bill. If hon. Members feel that it is unnecessary to scrutinise the Bill at this stage, all I can say is that the responsibility of those who were not members of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill is all the greater because of the failure of those who did sit on that Committee—I am sorry if that causes embarrassment on the Opposition Front Bench—to ask pertinent questions. A good example of a pertinent question is why the Secretary of State should have the power under clause 1(2) to substitute a new definition of fireworks.

Eric Forth: My hon. Friend is being a little harsh. Although we delegate responsibility to our colleagues in Committee to consider a Bill in detail, the whole point of Report stage is that those who did not have the privilege of being on the Committee have an opportunity to consider the Bill again in the light of what the Committee has done. That justifies what we are doing today.

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend is right. It may be that the members of the Committee were not able to go into sufficient detail on the Bill because no regulatory impact assessment had been produced at that stage.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would confine his remarks to his amendment.

Christopher Chope: I will indeed confine my remarks to the issues before us today, as set out on the Order Paper and in the first group of amendments. It is worth reminding the House of what the Bill's promoter said on Second Reading:
	"I do not intend that the Bill should extend to items such as pyrotechnic bird-scarers, small explosive charges for car airbags, amateur rocket motors or marine distress flares . . . They are not currently classed as fireworks, and that will continue."
	However, the Bill will give the Minister the power to include, through regulation, those very items that the sponsor of the Bill assured the House he did not intend to include in the ambit of the Bill. If that does not set the alarms bells ringing, I do not know what will.
	In the same debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) asked the Bill's promoter, the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan), whether he had
	"assurances from the Minister that the things for which he asks will happen?"
	In essence, my hon. Friend was asking whether the Bill's promoter trusted the Minister. The hon. Member for Hamilton, South replied:
	"I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. It is important that I set out, after my consultations and discussions, the content that I believe should be included in the Bill. It is an enabling Bill, and it is essential that the Minister listen to the voice of Members and of the general public outside. Under the circumstances, I hope that that will be acceptable to the hon. Gentleman."—[Official Report, 28 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 482–86.]
	I do not know whether that was acceptable to my hon. Friend, but it would not have been acceptable to me as a response to a reasonable inquiry about whether the Minister had given any assurances to the promoter that what he did not want in the Bill would not subsequently be added through regulation. The hon. Member for Hamilton, South needs to apply his mind to that point, because the power could be used to ban those very items that he said would not be banned. It could also be used to introduce other controls over fireworks, and it could form part of the agenda for those who wish to ban fireworks completely. Much needs to be done to enforce better control over noise from, and abuse of, fireworks, but I believe that we should be allowed to use fireworks. There is scope for regulation, but the enormous powers given in the Bill should be circumscribed.

Andrew Robathan: My hon. Friend makes a good point. We hear much from people who do not like fireworks, but those who do like fireworks are not necessarily minded to write to their Member of Parliament to say so. Millions of people in this country enjoy fireworks, which is why we want the Bill to be balanced.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is right. Listening to the voice of Members and the general public, as the hon. Member for Hamilton, South said on Second Reading, is what this Chamber is all about. I know from my constituents that they do not wish to have an outright ban on fireworks, nor do they wish to see the decibel limit on fireworks reduced to such a level that the firework cannot be propelled into the sky and explode in the way that gives pleasure to those watching it.
	I have spoken to the British Fireworks Association, and it assures me that if the decibel limit is reduced below 120—the proposed European standard, but not contained in the British standard—it will not be possible to produce fireworks that would be propelled into the sky to explode with a bang. On Second Reading and in Committee, I looked for evidence of the thinking of the promoter and the Minister on that issue. Unfortunately, every time someone made a point, whether for the 120 dB limit or for the 95 dB limit, the Minister and the promoter said something like, "Yes, I am on your side. It'll be all right on the day." They were building ambiguity into the debate. It was called seeking consensus, but one cannot have a consensus between those who want a 95 dB limit on fireworks, which excludes most of what we know as fireworks, and those who want a 120 dB limit, which could control the noisiest fireworks but would not stop fireworks containing sufficient propellant and explosive to explode in the sky. It is the exploding in the sky that actually causes the noise.

Andrew Murrison: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that decibels work on a logarithmic scale. Hon. Members may be confused by the apparently small difference between 95 dB and 120 dB, but it is vast. The level of 120 dB is like standing next to a jet engine and 95 dB is more like loud street noise. Certainly, the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association has said that 95 dB is reasonable for their animals, because it covers traffic noise, for example. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is sound guidance?

Christopher Chope: I agree with my hon. Friend that ambient traffic noise can reach 95 dB. Indeed, it was claimed in Committee that if one dropped a book from a reasonable height, the sound would reach 95 dB, although if we dropped all the Chancellor's euro documents from a similar height, they would probably produce 120 dB. The 120 dB limit is not unreasonable. Indeed, that is the limit that the Europeans are adopting as a standard. If my hon. Friend thinks that it is an unreasonable limit, he should consider the consequences of legislating for a lower limit. What will happen is that, under the single market—which I support—people will be able to go and purchase fireworks on the continent that are in accordance with the European standard and bring them back to this country. A new smuggling trade might develop, to rival those for alcohol, tobacco and, indeed, humans.

George Osborne: My hon. Friend raises an interesting issue about the compatibility of much of the Bill with the single European market. As I understand it, we cannot impose restrictions on the trade of goods within the single market. Is that not the case?

Christopher Chope: It must be the case. I spoke to the boss of the British Fireworks Association about that and he said that he thought that it might be possible, under European law as it exists at the moment, for regulations to be made here that would introduce a lower decibel limit on fireworks than prevails on the continent. I must admit to my hon. Friend that I did not rigorously go into that matter, but the proposal is sufficient to cause alarm bells to ring for me—and probably for my hon. Friend. If we try to establish a much lower decibel limit for fireworks in this country than the one that applies on the continent, it would engender and encourage an illegal trade in fireworks.

Mark Field: That is an extremely valid point. Will my hon. Friend go into more detail about the prospect of an illegal trade? In this country, owing partly to the higher tax, more than 30 per cent. of tobacco—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are debating an amendment about the definition of "fireworks".

Christopher Chope: We are indeed, and it is important that there should be compatibility between the definition of "fireworks" in this country and that used on the continent. If no such compatibility exists, there will be smuggling, in the same way that there is smuggling of fuel and tobacco owing to the lack of compatibility in the price and taxation of those products.

George Osborne: I am sorry to press my hon. Friend on this matter. Perhaps if he does not know the answer to my question, the Minister could intervene on him to provide it. If we had a different legal definition of "fireworks" from the definition that applies on the continent, would it not be contradictory to the principles of the single market? I support the intention of the Bill to deal with nuisance, but the provisions must be legal. If my hon. Friend cannot answer that point, perhaps the Minister can.

Christopher Chope: I hope that the Minister will be able to answer that question, and I will certainly allow her to intervene on me to do so. That would inform the debate further.

Mark Field: I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether the Bill is compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. Manufacturers in the UK and Europe are worried that an entirely arbitrary new definition, as proposed in clause 1(2), could lead to certain problems. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to intervene on my hon. Friend on this important matter.

Christopher Chope: So do I. This is all part of the debate about the power contained in clause 1 as it is presently drafted. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Hamilton, South said:
	"In presenting the Bill to the House, I am aware that there are those who may be worried by the fact that this is an enabling Bill. I, too, have some concerns about some of the visions of draconian provisions being enacted using the scope of powers granted under the Bill. I am, however, reassured by the discussions that I have had in preparing the Bill. I believe that with proper thought and scrutiny"—
	we are certainly giving the Bill those things today—
	"the regulations made under it would not be an instrument of tyranny."—
	The trouble is that there will not be much opportunity for the scrutiny of any regulations made under this provision, because they will be debated for a maximum of 90 minutes and will not be capable of amendment. Effectively, all the Members of the House will be excluded from that process and there will be no opportunity to give the measures the scrutiny that the hon. Gentleman says he wants. He went on:
	"This is not a killjoy Bill. As those with expertise have agreed, it is a sensible"—[Official Report, 28 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 486.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are now getting into a Second Reading debate. I refer the hon. Gentleman once more to the amendments to this part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for ensuring that we stick to the issues under discussion. I hope that the hon. Member for Hamilton, South will accept the amendment. Clause 1(2) gives a very wide-ranging power to the Minister effectively to ban all fireworks by changing the definition of "fireworks" in the Bill. It is in the context of how that power might be used that I am quoting what the hon. Gentleman said on Second Reading.
	When the issue of noise came up in Committee, there were some interesting exchanges of views. The hon. Member for Hamilton, South said:
	"As I am sure the Minister will make clear when she responds,"—
	that is an example of the triumph of hope over experience that often occurs in Committee—
	"the sensible way forward would be to reach a consensus about the decibel level that has the least effect on animals and the elderly. If we can do that, we shall have taken a major step forward, although we may not have achieved the full loaf. That is how we should proceed on the clause, but the Minister will want to make her position clear."
	The hon. Gentleman continued:
	"In its "Quiet Please" report, the RSPCA recognises the fact that changing the construction of fireworks may result in a lower decibel level. I would hate to see the British Fireworks Association start a lobbying campaign, with Opposition parties asking for opposition to the Bill on the basis that we were injuring the industry. It is therefore important that we reach a consensus, and an attempt has been made to do that as regards the noise level. The clause is a way forward, and I hope that the Minister will listen to the concerns that have been expressed this afternoon."
	If such a consensus has been reached on the appropriate noise level for fireworks, will the Minister tell us what it is, and give the House an undertaking that the Government will not use any of the powers in the Bill—particularly those in clause 1—to change that verdict? All that is happening at the moment is that we are being told that the British Fireworks Association wants a limit of 120 dB while those on the other side of the argument want 95 dB.
	The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) intervened in that same debate in Committee. He said:
	"I fully recognise that the clause gives the Minister powers. We shall find out how effective it is once we see the regulations, but we must first get to that stage. Like the hon. Member for Hamilton, South, I would be worried if we became bogged down in the nitty-gritty at this stage."
	That is a most extraordinary comment. Surely the Standing Committee is precisely the stage at which we should get bogged down in the nitty-gritty and ask pertinent questions, because we shall certainly not be able to do so when we are presented with a set of regulations that we can simply either accept or reject. The hon. Gentleman went on:
	"Let us get the principle on the statute book—we can argue about the nitty-gritty of the regulations thereafter."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 30 April 2003; c. 10–11.]
	That is a wholly misconceived approach, which gives the Government the power to keep their secret agenda and declare their hand only after this enabling Bill has gone through. This is why I am seeking an assurance from the Minister on noise limits in particular. If we do not get such an assurance, we might be minded to accuse the Government of giving the impression that they are on the side of those who want the 95 dB limit, while secretly going for the 120 dB limit, or vice versa.

Michael Weir: The point that I was making in Committee is that fireworks change over time. That is one of the difficulties of trying to put into the Bill a definition of "fireworks". A particular type of firework could have been banned, but there could be changes later. If we are too prescriptive at this stage, the Bill will be completely ineffective. By its very nature, this provision will have to be introduced by way of regulation.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Does he have a specific example of an item that is not defined as a firework but which might be included as such if the definition were changed? I have referred to some, which the hon. Member for Hamilton, South has assured us will not be included.

Michael Weir: The hon. Gentleman misconstrues the point. Fireworks evolve over time. When we were young there were small bangers and Catherine-wheels; nowadays there are massive great rockets.

Christopher Chope: Surely that is covered by the British standard specification. The Bill makes it clear that it is covered by both the existing specification and any subsequent amendments to it. As I said at the outset, fireworks that do not comply with the specification are already subject to controls and are outlawed. What is the agenda that causes the Minister to see a need for a power to change the definition of fireworks in secondary legislation?
	The noise issue was discussed in Committee. The promoter said
	"Although we could have a debate about the noise levels that we could set, does my hon. Friend accept that if, on the basis of, say, the 'Quiet Please' report, we set the noise level at 95 dB and we lost the Bill, that would be a major problem in dealing with fireworks? If so, does my hon. Friend accept that everything will depend on the Minister's implementation of the clause to the full, on the basis of the concerns that he and others have expressed?"
	Today—like many other Members, no doubt—I received a letter from a number of organisations associated with the Bill's promotion: the Pet Care Trust, the Kennel Club, the RSPCA, the Blue Cross, the National Canine Defence League, the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association and Battersea Dogs Home. They say that there is a consensus in favour of the Bill which includes not just a coalition of animal welfare organisations but the British Fireworks Association. That consensus, however, is due to ignorance of the decibel level that will feature in future regulation by the Minister, and ignorance of the true intent.
	I know that the Minister has had discussions with the fireworks industry. Perhaps she can tell us a bit more about the assurances that she can give. A relatively short time ago, she said that the amendments to the regulations produced by the Government in 1997 were sufficient to deal with the mischief of firework noise and nuisance—which I am the first to accept is a real problem for many people, including a number of my constituents.
	In a sense this is a narrow amendment, but I think that the response to it will affect the whole tenor of today's debate. Many fears—mine, certainly—will be allayed if the promoter or the Minister says unequivocally that there is no intention of introducing a noise standard that differs from the European standard.
	There is a built-in conflict, which was identified in Committee. A Member whose constituency I cannot remember said:
	"A 120 dB limit is not at all reasonable or sensible. I understand that that level, which the European Union perhaps advocates, is the equivalent of a jet aircraft at 100 m or a loud car horn at 1 m. It is far too loud. That is why I am attracted by the RSPCA's 'Quiet Please' campaign . . . because it gives us a starting point. Our constituents want the control of noise to be the prime consideration of the House of Commons in dealing with fireworks, which is why that campaign should be a starting point. We should at least be able to tell our constituents why 95 dB is not appropriate, reasonable or consensual, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South suggested it was not."
	Unless we are given a clear response, as I hope we will be, Members will be saying to one group of constituents that the Government are in favour of 95 dB and assuring another group that the Government are committed to a minimum level of 120 dB. A deep chasm lies between the two sides. I fear that the broad terms of the Bill in its current form, and in particular the power in clause 1, enable the Government to come down on one side or the other without providing any opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny and amendment.
	I hoped that reading what the Minister said in Committee would clarify the Government's intentions, but it did not. The Minister said
	"Noise was mentioned in many contributions. I have met the RSPCA. Indeed, I commended it on producing the document entitled 'Quiet Please—Loud fireworks frighten animals' and on working to reduce the alarm and distress caused to animals by fireworks, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) and others"—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now beginning to talk about the next group of amendments, headed "Risk and the consequences of fireworks". He must address himself to amendment No. 40.

Christopher Chope: I am trying to confine my remarks to the definition of fireworks, Madam Deputy Speaker. The issue of definition includes the issue of the decibel level, and of whether the Government intend to introduce a maximum level. I will not say much more, because I am sure the Minister will speak for herself shortly, but I must challenge her on one point. In Committee, when asked whether she favoured the 95 dB or the 120 dB level, she said:
	"I do not want to get technical or be drawn into technical arguments, but my hon. Friend talked about background noise with regard to how loud a noise seems. Other issues include proximity—whether it is a one-off or repeated noise, the environment in which it takes place"
	and so forth.
	A Member asked:
	"If my hon. Friend will indulge me in my zealotry, could she say how a scenario might develop whereby, through regulations, it could be dictated whether a firework with a noise level of, say, 120 dB was set off next door to someone's house or in a field half a mile away?"
	The Minister said
	"Obviously one cannot do that, as my hon. Friend is well aware. There is nothing absolute about sound. Where and how it is measured, and the environment in which it takes place, make a huge difference to its impact on humans and animals." —[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 30 April 2003; c. 12–13.]
	She went on to say that the number of bangs on 5 November would be reduced as a result of an agreement with the fireworks organisations, an idea that I strongly support.
	The Minister and the promoter and sponsors have ducked and weaved on the issue of the decibel level. Now is the time for that ducking and weaving to end. We need some clear speaking from the Government, the promoter and the sponsors. The proposal to remove the power in clause 1(2) will make that possible.

Edward Leigh: Amendment No. 66 says that subsections (1) and (2) of clause 5
	"shall not apply to class I and class II fireworks."
	That goes to the heart of the Bill, as far as I can see. I understand that there is much concern about fireworks, safety and noise but I do not want us to create, as we appear to be creating today, an enabling Bill that will be used gradually to ratchet up controls on class 1 and class 2 fireworks.
	Class 1 fireworks can be used indoors. With class 2 fireworks, one is advised to stand about 5 m away. They can be bought in a shop. We all grew up with those fireworks; they were used for small private displays in the garden with our parents on Guy Fawkes' night. Admittedly, they can be used wrongly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) said. Even a sparkler can blind someone. We allow small children to wave sparklers around. If they poke a sparkler in another child's eye, they could blind that child. There will always be a risk with those fireworks, but most responsible people take tremendous care to ensure that, at little private firework displays in the garden, children are kept back and they are nice occasions.
	I accept that the Government are not in the business of banning private firework displays yet, although, in some parts of the world, including America, they have been. In some American counties, it is even difficult to buy a sparkler. What I am concerned about is that some people have an agenda and oppose any sale of fireworks to private individuals for such displays. I am concerned that we will gradually through this enabling Bill give the Minister power to deal with such relatively modest fireworks. My amendment is modest. One can support what the Bill is trying to do and still accept the amendment. The Bill contains great powers.

Mark Field: My hon. Friend rightly expresses alarm at the prospect of a lot of new law coming in and a fully fledged outlawing of firework displays. He mentioned the United States of America—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's intervention will address the amendment under discussion.

Mark Field: In many parts of France, except on Bastille day, firework displays are entirely outlawed, so I entirely share my hon. Friend's concerns.

Edward Leigh: My amendment deals with class 1 and class 2 fireworks. I will describe later all the regulations and voluntary agreements that have been made but, in our gardens and little displays, we can compare the fireworks we see now with those we saw as children. There is a danger. If we look at the draconian powers in subsections (1) and (2), we can see that Ministers—I do not know about this Minister but Ministers come and go—could use the powers to ensure that it was impossible for a private individual to buy class 2 fireworks; I am prepared to accept that no Minister would ever make it impossible to obtain class 1 fireworks. Alternatively, there will be so many rules, regulations and limitations on the time of year at which they can be bought and all the rest of it that, in five, 10 or 15 years, the traditional British private little firework party will cease and one will not go along to the local Woolworth's to buy a little box of fireworks.
	May I deal with amendment No. 40? The point about the decibel limit is very serious. As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said, the definition of fireworks is important. I do not think that either of us wants to kill the Bill. [Interruption.] What we want this morning—it is for the hon. Member who is in charge of the Bill to make his decision—is a sensible compromise. We are concerned as much as anyone else with noise and safety but I have talked to the British Fireworks Association. Frankly, if we define fireworks in such a way that people will be able to buy at a shop only fireworks that have a decibel limit of 90, the traditional private firework display in Britain will become meaningless. One will be able to buy a few little Roman candle-type things that splutter at the bottom of the garden and make a bit of light.
	I do not think that that is what people mean by a firework display. To propel the rocket into the sky and let off a firework as we traditionally understand it, one has to make a noise. There have been horrendous descriptions of what 120 dB means, but if we think about 90 dB in terms of ambient traffic noise, we realise that, if ever we were to listen to what the anti-firework lobby is saying, our own private firework displays would mean very little.
	One only has to look at the Bill to realise that it is an enabling Bill. I would not mind if, by studying the Bill today, studying the debates and the amendments that I have tabled, we could pin down the promoter of the Bill on precisely what he wants to do about class 1 and class 2 fireworks. He will have an opportunity to sum up but the Minister said herself that the Bill will provide a raft of new powers to control the misuse of fireworks. All I am trying to do with the amendments is ensure that the House has a serious debate about class 1 and class 2 fireworks.
	The shadow spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), put it well when he said that the Bill had "little substance". When I read the Bill, that was my view—that it had already been watered down by the Government. However, on Second Reading, my hon. Friend went on to say:
	"we can only guess what will come in its wake. For that reason, we are not entirely happy. I urge the Minister to concentrate on enforcement more than on anything else."—[Official Report, 28 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 496.]
	I return to subsections (1) and (2) of clause 5. Remember that we are now dealing with sparklers, the sort of things one buys in a little box from Woolworth's. Subsection (1) says:
	"Fireworks regulations may include provision—
	(a) prohibiting persons from supplying, or offering or agreeing to supply, fireworks of a description specified in the regulations".
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said, that gives this Minister, or a subsequent Minister, carte blanche to say in five years that fireworks will not be anything like the fireworks we have known and grown up with. Under subsection (2), the Minister could prohibit
	"the purchase or possession of fireworks of a description specified in the regulations",
	which she introduced as a result of this enabling Bill. She could prohibit
	"the purchase or possession of fireworks of a description specified in the regulations by persons of a description so specified."
	As I understand it—and we are talking about class 1 and 2 fireworks—we are giving enormous powers to the Minister.
	It will be said in answer to what I am saying, "I am sorry that the hon. Member for Gainsborough thinks that but we have to be concerned about noise and safety." I make one important point: however quiet one makes the fireworks, one can never make them entirely safe. We are talking about "fire" works and, if we were to make them so boring that they made no noise and could not be propelled into the sky, they would still be a potential risk. A flame would still be involved. Completely noiseless fireworks might achieve one's aim, because no one would want to buy them. However, they could still cause death and injury.
	I am talking about class 1 and 2 fireworks, and it is true that, in 2001, there were 1,362 injuries. Therefore, it might be said that we have to deal with class 1 and 2 fireworks, because those are the fireworks that people buy and light in the garden. They are not used in the controlled environment of an organised firework display, and they are not the vast rockets that fly up into the sky. However, they are precisely the fireworks that cause injuries. That is why, like everyone else, I am in two minds about the Bill. I do not want to be accused of blocking a Bill if to do so means that there could be injuries in the future. That is not my intention; I want to improve the Bill. A figure of 1,362 injuries sounds a lot. No doubt a fair proportion of them were caused by class 2 fireworks, typically by children playing around with them.

Christopher Chope: Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that, ironically, the number of injuries has gone up under this Government despite the fact that they made much play of introducing new regulations in 1997 to address the problem?

Edward Leigh: The Bill's supporters place much credence in the fact that the number of injuries is going up and that we face a crisis. I have had the advantage of carrying out some research on this subject and, if the 1996 figures are taken into account, we see more of a fluctuating picture rather than a build-up from 1997 that has reached crisis point now.
	I suggested that many of the 1, 362 injuries in 2001 were caused by class 2 fireworks. That year, there were no fatalities, but the previous year there were 972 injuries and two fatalities—and one fatality is too many. However, let us consider the figures from the Department of Trade and Industry for accidents in the home and put the matter into perspective. The DTI's website shows that 2.7 million accidents requiring visits to hospital and nearly 4,000 fatalities resulted from accidents in the home.
	Nobody wants anyone to be injured by class 1 and 2 fireworks. Nobody, we are told, wants to ban fireworks altogether. There have been injuries and fatalities, but 4,000 fatalities result from accidents in the home. I do not think that giving the Minister the draconian powers over class 1 and 2 fireworks—the fireworks that we buy and use in the garden—will save lives. All that would happen is that we would kill off the traditional private firework display and not save a single life. After all, 313,000 injuries resulted from road traffic accidents. About 40,000 of them were serious, and there were 3,450 fatalities. Our responses must be appropriate and proportionate.
	Let us consider all the controls that are in place for class 1 and 2 fireworks. If one listens to the anti-firework lobby, one might think that the problem is completely out of control, that people can buy what they want, that fireworks cause a massive number of injuries, that animals are being scared and all the rest. The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association tells us that only four or five dogs have to retire each year because of the distress caused by fireworks. I agree that it is unfortunate that four or five dogs have to retire each year, but I doubt whether that means that it is necessary to introduce such draconian powers to deal with the traditional fireworks that one can buy over the counter.
	Many powers are available to deal with the sale and control of fireworks. I am prepared to accept that the Minister should perhaps have the powers in the Bill to deal with class 3 and 4 fireworks. However, we are dealing with class 1 and 2 fireworks and there is a requirement that all fireworks intended for use by the public must comply with BS 7114, the British standard referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. That already controls what we can buy. There is a permanent ban on the supply of category 3 bangers, including flash bangers, jumping crackers, Chinese crackers and fireworks with erratic flight. That ban came into force on 15 October 1997. As the Minister's predecessor showed on that date, there are powers to deal with the worst fireworks—those that actually irritate people.
	An increase was made in the minimum age—from 16 to 18—of persons who can be supplied with fireworks. The supply of caps, cracker snaps, novelty matches, party poppers, serpents and throw-downs was made exempt from that prohibition, but, under the Explosives Acts, remain subject to the prohibition on sale to persons apparently under the age of 16. It is said that we need the Bill because people are buying the class 1 and 2 fireworks that cause injury, but all those regulations have already been made.
	There is already a prohibition on retailers splitting large boxes and selling fireworks individually. That previously formed part of a voluntary agreement. Therefore, one has to be of a certain age to buy fireworks and one has to buy a box. In our families, there is no question of our children, with their little bit of pocket money, being able to buy one firework in the way that we did as children. Mothers and fathers have to buy a whole box, and that is quite expensive. There has also been an increase in the permitted length of hand-held sparkers from 450 mm to 470 mm.
	I have gone through that list of regulations to show what has already been achieved. The need for the draconian powers in clause 5 is a mystery. There is already a prohibition on the supply to the public of class 2 bangers and on the supply of mini-rockets except for the purpose of special effects in the theatre, film and television. There is a requirement for sparklers to carry the additional warning that they are not suitable for children under five years of age and that all fireworks not suitable for use by the general public have clear warning labels to that effect. Size limits have been imposed on the supply to the general public of certain fireworks such as Roman candles, mines, batteries—for example, a cake of Roman candles—wheels and combinations. It is already one of the most regulated industries in this country. It is seriously concerned that it will cease to exist if the Bill is implemented in its current form.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now straying into remarks that are more suitable for Second Reading. They are not directed at his amendment.

Edward Leigh: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that you think that I have managed to explain why the Bill should not apply to class 1 and 2 fireworks. All that the promoter has to do is stand up and accept my amendment. For the life of me, I do not understand why he does not. He cannot seriously argue that the main evil in terms of death, injury, noise and disturbance is class 1 and 2 fireworks. I shall wait to hear what he says in reply.
	If the promoter says, "I'm sorry but many of the problems are caused by class 1 and 2 fireworks", I should like to see proof of that. The point about safety is dealt with by amendment No. 40. We will never make fireworks entirely safe unless we ban them altogether. However, there are so many controls on class 1 and 2 fireworks that we must ask why they need to be dealt with by the Bill. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 deals with noise nuisance and empowers local authorities to deal with noise from fixed premises. A local authority can deal with class 1 and 2 fireworks if it wants.
	The British Fireworks Association is constantly making progress on the introduction of voluntary codes and procedures on the class 1 and 2 fireworks that can and cannot be sold over the counter. For instance, it announced on 14 October 2002 that it is to remove single-tube air bombs—a sort of cheap, noisy Roman candle—and small whistle-bang rockets from the market after they were linked to injuries. That came into effect on 1 January 2003. The association distributes 95 per cent. of all family fireworks in the UK. It is estimated that the withdrawal of those fireworks will result in the removal of 30 million loud bangs from the market every year. That measure is already in place.
	The industry is one of the most regulated in the country and it is making great progress in dealing with class 1 and 2 fireworks. Why on earth do we need the extra powers? If the industry were not responding and had not made progress, or if the Minister did not have powers to deal with class 1 and 2 fireworks, it might be a different matter, but all those regulations were issued in October 1997 and the industry has dealt with some of the problems itself.
	The Minister announced on 17 October 2002 tough new measures to cut the number of firework injuries. In the context of class 1 and 2 fireworks that are taken home, she said that there would be a new drive to encourage local councils to use their powers to curb the problem of noise and nuisance. Councils have the powers to do their job properly. The regulatory impact assessment notes that only 35 per cent. of local authorities offer a full night-time noise response service and that 18 per cent. of local authorities do not have any out-of-hours response cover.
	Surely the reason why noise complaints have increased is the poor service provided by local authorities. We do not need the draconian new powers contained in clause 5. All we need is for local authorities to do what they are already fully empowered to do. If antisocial people are buying boxes of fireworks and taking them home where they cause all sorts of noise and are a nuisance to their neighbours in the middle of the night, at 1 or 2 am, the local authorities have all the powers they need to deal with that.

Andrew Murrison: I am listening with great interest to what my hon. Friend says about existing powers. However, the British Fireworks Association, the British Pyrotechnics Association and the explosives group of the CBI want the Bill to succeed. They clearly do not necessarily share his feelings about existing powers and the ability of councils to sort out such nuisance.

Edward Leigh: I have not said that I do not want the Bill to succeed. I want to improve it. To be honest, the industry is in a dreadful cleft stick. It believes that if the Bill does not—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again, I remind the hon. Gentleman of the narrowness of the amendment and of the need to contain his remarks to it.

Edward Leigh: I shall try to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) later. He made a serious point.
	I want to ensure that the Bill deals with the main evil—if there is an evil—of people who do not worry about other people and deliberately set out to cause distress and noise. Looking at recent history and what is contained in regulations, Acts of Parliament and announcements by the industry and the Minister, I do not believe that those serious powers need to apply to class 1 and 2 fireworks, the traditional fireworks that we buy and take home for our own firework displays. I hope that the Minister reassures us on that.

Bill Tynan: I was reluctant to get involved in the debate, but arguments are being developed that are not relevant to the Bill. We have a proposal on the noise level, whether it be 120 or 95 dB. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has argued strongly for 95 dB. When I embarked on the Bill, I tried to get as much consensus as possible. People might think that that is not the right way to proceed, but I think that it is better to get agreement on how we move forward than constantly to bicker about the issues raised by fireworks legislation.
	I tried to draw all the strands together and spent considerable time with the voluntary organisations because I thought that their views were important. I also wanted to reassure the British Fireworks Association and the explosives industry group that there was a problem with which we had to deal. The 120 dB has been discussed in Europe and will probably not come into effect until 2004. We could live with a Bill that included 120 dB. That would be acceptable. It is up to the Minister to say what she thinks about that, but I think that 120 dB is sensible at the moment.
	The fireworks industry argued that a level lower than 120 dB would make the composition of fireworks and displays difficult. I attended a "Quiet Please" firework demonstration and understand the problems that the RSPCA raises, but I believe that the inclusion of 120 dB is sensible for the Bill's purposes.

Christopher Chope: I am extremely grateful for what the hon. Gentleman just said. If that position had been made clear earlier we might not have had to spend an hour discussing the subject. Does he intend to table an amendment to that effect in another place? How does he intend to go about that because it is important to stipulate 120 dB in the Bill for the reasons set out earlier?

Bill Tynan: I must make it clear that the Bill is an enabling Bill to deal with present problems. There is no need to table such an amendment in another place. I hope that my assurances and those given to the British Fireworks Association by the Minister would be sufficient for the hon. Gentleman to accept the Bill as it stands. That would be sensible.

Edward Leigh: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for replying to the debate in a moderate and sensible manner. He is clearly trying to make progress. With the greatest respect, however, I am afraid that his reassurances are not enough because he is not the Minister responsible. Such an assurance has to come from the Minister when she sums up.

Bill Tynan: Perhaps it is my Scottish accent or that I talk too quickly and should slow down, but I made the point that I hope that the Minister will indicate in her response that 120 dB is satisfactory for the Bill's purposes. I hope that that clarifies the situation.
	The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) mentioned category 1 and 2 fireworks. If we only had fireworks of those categories, we would not have the problems that we do and would not be so concerned. Category 3 and 4 fireworks are the major problem and they are primarily what the Bill attempts to address. It is important to compromise. The last thing I want to do is to accuse Opposition Members of wrecking the Bill, which is important for our constituents. A jocular remark was made about the electorate. The Conservative Front-Bench spokesman said that millions of people enjoy fireworks. So do I. However, they enjoy fireworks when they are used safely and responsibly. That is what the Bill is about; it is not about trying to put pressure on the fireworks industry. We do not want to create a situation in which we cannot make progress with the Bill.
	I ask the Minister to accept that category 1 and 2 fireworks are not a problem and that a noise level of 120 dB is not a problem. I hope that we can have a sensible debate on that basis. Until now, we have been prevaricating and widening the debate. Obviously, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is for you to determine the limits of the debate, and you have done so efficiently. I want a debate on the issues, not on supposition about what might happen.

Edward Leigh: We are making a lot of progress, which is what Parliament should be about, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he is summing up the debate. He agrees with us about 120 db and about categories 1 and 2. I cannot remember his exact words, but he seemed to be saying that if there were only category 1 and 2 fireworks, there would be no problem. He has already requested that the Minister state that she does not want to the Bill to apply to those fireworks; do I take it that the hon. Gentleman is prepared for amendments to that effect to be tabled, perhaps in another place?

Bill Tynan: I will allow the Minister to respond to that question. Other issues have been raised by the amendments which I would like to address, but as I said, 120 dB and category 1 and 2 fireworks are not a problem.
	The intention behind the Bill is that fireworks are used responsibly and enjoyably. I am conscious that today is Friday 13—black Friday, as far as many are concerned—and it would be a black day if two Conservative Members were able to destroy the work done over the past few months to reach agreement with all sections of the industry and with voluntary organisations. [Hon. Members: "And the House."] Indeed. I hope that those two Members will be content with what I have said.

John Baron: I want to make it clear that I support the Bill. In particular, I support licensing, so that there will be proper control over the sale of fireworks to the public, and the tightening of controls on the import of fireworks, which, in some cases, we know is a public health hazard because of low standards of manufacture.
	I suggest to the Minister, however, that clarification about the regulations to be made under clause 1(2) would help the House tremendously. I share the concern expressed by my colleagues, which I believe the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) has expressed in the past. We have a natural aversion to enabling powers. I cast no aspersions on the Minister, but the House should be concerned about allowing the Government, at a later stage, to introduce unknown powers or regulations over which we will have no control.
	I am not suggesting that the Minister would introduce draconian powers, but it is only right that the House question her on the issue because the measure could be open to all sorts of abuse. We need to know the boundaries and parameters within which the Government are operating, so that we have some idea of what we are agreeing to in this enabling Bill. It goes against the interests of the House easily and freely to give enabling powers without clear guidance as to how the Government will use them. That is the main concern of Conservative Members, who support the Bill overall.

Andrew Robathan: For the benefit of any doubt, I reiterate that Her Majesty's Opposition support the Bill. Valuable points have been made, and I was particularly impressed by the sincerity of the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan). I know that he has done a great deal of work on the Bill, and we all want it to improve life for our constituents, but that is not to say that it is perfect. We have expressed our concerns before, and the amendments go to the heart of those concerns.
	We do not distrust the Minister, but as we all know, Ministers, and Governments, come and go. I hope that the Minister is still here this evening. [Interruption.] Not in the Chamber, although perhaps she would like to stay until then, but in her post. Our major concern is that the Bill gives the Government enormous enabling powers. In his speech on Second Reading, the hon. Member for Hamilton, South said that he did not like enabling Bills. I, too, dislike them, not because I distrust this Minister, but because I distrust the giving of unfettered power to any Government, be they Conservative or Labour.
	I want to see my children and, if they become parents, my children's children enjoying fireworks parties, and I want my constituents and their children to enjoy them. I am concerned that the powers in the Bill could, in the hands of a different Government or a different Minister, lead to a complete ban on fireworks. As we have heard, the "Quiet Please" campaign is really about getting rid of fireworks altogether. I did not see the demonstration on Potters Green, but I spoke to some people who were there, and they said that it was a bit of a joke. One wonders what on earth was the point of those fireworks.
	I take on board the severe criticism that I have received from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), and I accept his blaming me for not adequately scrutinising the Bill in Committee. As I said, however, we want it to proceed—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman address his remarks to the amendments?

Andrew Robathan: Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	The amendments cut to the heart of the Henry VIII powers in the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who is an expert on these matters, and on private Member's Bills in particular, described them as Henry VIII powers with knobs on. The amendments would improve the Bill without harming the effect that we want it to have because they would restrict the ability of a future Government or Minister to abuse those powers.

Melanie Johnson: I rise with pleasure to respond to the points that have been made, and I will endeavour to do so as briefly as possible.
	I turn first to the point made by the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) about the balance to be struck in making legislation effective. I agree that there must be a balance, but I say to all hon. Members that we have to be very careful; we must enable the Government to make regulations that tackle the problem in an appropriate and measured way.

Eric Forth: Will the Minister give way?

Melanie Johnson: I have barely said anything, but I will give way.

Eric Forth: On a point of clarification, the Minister said that the Government should make regulations, but surely the Government and Parliament together make regulations. That is the point at issue. Perhaps the Minister will clarify in her own mind whether she thinks that the Government have an absolute right to make regulations, or whether she thinks that there should be parliamentary involvement.

Melanie Johnson: I stand corrected. It is clear that Parliament makes those regulations.
	Amendment No. 40 is subject to affirmative resolution, despite the comments of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), and would allow full, detailed decisions to be made by Parliament under the affirmative procedure. However, it would also remove our ability to define fireworks or substitute a definition. We can compromise, but that may remove the House's ability in future to pass regulations and primary legislation to address an as yet unforeseen development in categorisation, such as something falling outside the definition of fireworks but nonetheless having the same sort of impact and effect. I hope that the hon. Member for Christchurch understands that that is why clause 1(2) was included in the Bill.

Christopher Chope: Can the Minister assure the House that that power would not be used to extend the category of fireworks to include things which the Bill's promoter assured us on Second Reading would not be included? Does she also accept that no Government or Parliament can legislate for all possible contingencies? Surely, if and when such contingencies arise, Parliament should then look at them. Something fundamental like the definition of fireworks is a matter for primary legislation.

Melanie Johnson: That is why the provision is as close to primary legislation as possible, and will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Debate and a positive decision by the House will be needed if such changes are to be made. I am not going to spend a long time debating this. I would like to respond to the points that have been made rather than keep taking interventions.

Andrew Robathan: rose—

Melanie Johnson: I will take one further intervention, but then I intend to make progress.

Andrew Robathan: I am grateful to the Minister. It is important that the Bill's provisions are clarified in debate. Is the Minister saying that clause 1(2) is currently subject to affirmative resolution?

Melanie Johnson: To be absolutely clear, under clause 16(2), the matter raised in amendment No. 40 is subject to affirmative resolution. I am correcting the misinformation that the hon. Member for Christchurch gave the House. I am sure that that was not intentional, but his information was not correct. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) about amendment No. 66. There is no intention to do anything about class 1 and class 2 fireworks.

Christopher Chope: rose—

Melanie Johnson: Can I just make some remarks, in the light of which the hon. Gentleman may wish to reconsider making an intervention?
	Amendment No. 66 is perfectly acceptable to us, but I have some difficulties with amendment No. 40 for the reasons that I have given. However, I trust that the assurances that I have given the House will be sufficient for the Opposition Members who tabled that amendment. I do not remember the hon. Member for Christchurch commenting on his intentions, save for his belief that certain things needed to be clarified. I take at face value the comment of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) that he is not trying to kill the Bill. However, I have a cutting from the Grimsby Telegraph from 29 July 1998, in which a senior member of the Conservative party in the locality publicly bemoans the fact that he killed the Bill's predecessor.
	We must all be careful to strike the right balance and make legislation that works effectively. I entirely agree with Opposition Members that we need to make sure that fireworks continue to be available for public use and can still be enjoyed by many people on different occasions, as they have been for decades if not centuries.

Edward Leigh: I am grateful for the Minister's apparent acceptance of amendment No. 66—we are making progress. However, I do not want her to conclude without dealing with the decibel point, which is crucial to the whole industry.

Melanie Johnson: I do not want to seem uncharitable by not giving way, but some Opposition Members are simply spending time urging me to discuss things that I have not yet had a chance to deal with.
	However, as the hon. Member for Gainsborough has raised the question of noise, I shall address it now. We have been taking a further look at the work done by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. In the spirit of consensus, which we all think is important, the Health and Safety Executive took a further look at its work on the 95 dB limit. However, the RSPCA's work on that limit appears to be flawed. Personally, I would have preferred to have evidence before me, but the Bill's progress should not be halted purely by the question of whether or not the House has an assurance today about a limit of 120 dB. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South in giving an assurance that we will stick to the 120 dB limit when implementing the Bill.
	Some Opposition Members are pressing us to accept an amendment in another place, and I fear that I must address that directly. We would not be content to accept such an amendment for the simple reason that it would have to be considered further by the Commons, so the Bill would go back and forth between the two Houses. I warn the Opposition that if that were the case, there is a risk that the Bill, given its timetabled passage as a private Member's Bill, would be lost and would not reach the statute book. That is my only reason for objecting to an amendment being accepted in the other place.

Christopher Chope: Will the Minister accept an assurance from my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and me, as the Members who are concerned about this issue, that if such an amendment were accepted in the other place we would not impede the free passage of the Bill through the Commons? It is a pity that this issue was not addressed in Committee, as we could have finished dealing with it today. However, it is important that it should be included in the Bill, and I assure the hon. Lady that we will not block the Bill if it is.

Melanie Johnson: I am content with the assurances that the hon. Gentleman gives on behalf of the hon. Member for Gainsborough and himself. Unfortunately, however, the Conservative ranks are clearly not united on these issues. There is always a possibility that other Members will do what the hon. Member for Christchurch assured me he will not do. If, after this debate, a concrete assurance was given and Government business managers were happy to accept it, that would be a matter for them and their Opposition counterparts. However, on the basis of this morning's debate, we are not confident that the Bill's passage will not be impeded.
	The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) sought an assurance about the Bill's compatibility with human rights legislation. I assure him that it is fully compatible with the requirements of such legislation—Ministers only sign off Bills when they are certain that they are. Finally, on the question of injuries, none of us should belittle the injuries that have occurred both this year and in previous years. However, I would like to point out that there has been a big drop in injuries over the past year. It is a welcome drop from a figure that was too high, but because we do not have the legislative means that the Bill would provide, we cannot do more than we are doing to tackle the matter of injuries. I trust that the House will speedily see the Bill through its remaining stages here this morning.

Christopher Chope: We have made great progress. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) for indicating to me that he was prepared to accept both amendments, and I am grateful to the Minister for indicating that she is prepared to accept amendment No. 66. I am also grateful to both of them for indicating that they accept the argument that there is no case for reducing the decibel level for fireworks below 120 dB.

Edward Leigh: We are almost there, but the Minister said that she would not object to a provision in the Bill dealing with the decibel limit, except for the fact that it might lead to further delays. She wanted concrete assurances. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) could catch the eye of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on the Front Bench, so that such assurances could be given.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan).

Andrew Robathan: Notwithstanding the fact that every Member of the House is a free spirit, I can assure the House that the Front Bench, with the support of the Whips, will try its utmost not to impede any amendment from the other place relating to the figure of 120 dB.

Melanie Johnson: rose—

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I give way to the Minister.

Melanie Johnson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It is for the usual channels to discuss the matter fully and determine the outcome. I have made clear our position and our only reservation. I want to make it clear to hon. Members that although we would be content to accept amendment No. 66, unfortunately we are not content to accept amendment No. 40, which is subject to affirmative resolution.

Christopher Chope: I am sorry that the Minister is not prepared to accept amendment No. 40. As I understood it, the Bill's promoter considered it a reasonable amendment. We may have to press the matter to a Division and test the will of the House.
	Perhaps the Minister is constrained by the Government approach: they want to keep open as many options as possible, but as Members of the House, we wish to keep some control over the matter within our remit. One way in which we could do that would be to ensure that changing the definition of fireworks had to be the subject of proper primary legislation, which could be debated and amended in the usual way, rather than through regulation, even by the affirmative procedure.
	On the substantive issue, we have made enormous progress in clarifying beyond peradventure that the Government believe that the 120 dB limit should be the lowest limit. That is in line with the view of the British Fireworks Association and with what is being contemplated in Europe. The only issue now is how we can ensure that the expressed will of the House can be written into the Bill, to prevent the possibility of a single-issue factor in the future putting pressure on the Government to amend it. That is why I should like the figure of 120 dB, which is fundamental to the future of the British fireworks industry and fireworks as we know them, to be written into the Bill.
	The Minister said that she was concerned that if the clause were amended in the other place, the entire Bill may fall, but I hope that, as she said, the matter can be sorted out through the usual channels, because we are here to try together to improve legislation where it can be improved.
	I regret that in all the earlier statements from both the Minister and the promoter there was insufficient clarity on the issue. If there had been proper clarity, we could probably have tabled the amendment in Committee, it would have been accepted on Report, and the Bill could have gone through in that form. Perhaps it is a feature of the House that we do not have as many stages for considering a Bill as they do in their lordships' House. That is a matter that the Procedure Committee may want to consider on a future occasion.
	I am grateful to the Minister for her acceptance. I hope that it is shared by other hon. Members. I should like to press amendment No. 40 to a Division, as it involves an issue of principle. A fundamental change to the definition of fireworks should be the subject of primary, rather than secondary, legislation.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 6, Noes 85.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Power to make Regulations about Fireworks

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 41, in page 2, line 1, leave out 'there is no' and insert 'the'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 42, in page 2, line 2, after 'subsection (3)', insert 'is controlled'.
	No. 43, in page 2, line 2, leave out ', or'.
	No. 44, in page 2, line 3, leave out paragraph (b).
	No. 45, in page 2, line 8, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
	'(a) death, injury or unnecessary suffering to persons'.
	No. 46, in page 2, line 9, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
	'(b) death, injury or unnecessary suffering to any domestic or captive animal, and'.

Christopher Chope: This is another important group of amendments, which deals with the issue of risk and consequences, and their effect would be to make clause 2 much more reasonable. If amendments Nos. 41 and 42 were accepted, clause 2(1)(a) would read:
	"for securing that the risk that use of fireworks will have the consequences specified in subsection (3) is controlled".
	Those of us who have any experience of health and safety issues and legislation—I have some, having had the privilege of serving on the Health and Safety Commission for a number of years—know that the elimination of risk is not practical. We are talking about introducing means by which risks and the consequences of those risks can be controlled. That is reflected in my amendments, rather than the absolutist approach—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There are too many alternative conversations going on in the Chamber.

Christopher Chope: It may be that hon. Members are discussing telephone calls that they have received or are about to receive from No. 10.
	Clause 2 states:
	"The Secretary of State may by regulations . . . make any provision which the Secretary of State considers appropriate . . . for securing that there is no risk that use of fireworks will have the consequences specified".
	As I said earlier, the only way of eliminating the risk completely is to ban fireworks completely. The only way of eliminating the risk of being struck dead by a falling branch or tree is to cut down every tree in the country. The only way of eliminating the risk of being mown down by a motor car is to ban all cars. At the moment, the clause is far too extreme. The only way in which we could completely eliminate the risk of being struck by lightning would be to stay in our bunkers permanently unless there were a completely clear blue sky outside, although a thunderbolt might even then come from nowhere. It is important that when we as a House introduce legislation, we use language that people can understand. Without too much immodesty, I argue that the wording of my amendments would make the Bill better and clearer, which is why I commend them to the House.
	I do not know whether the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) is going to speak, but on Second Reading, he said:
	"the Bill introduces a subjective test. The prosecuting authorities will have to define personal distress . . . That clause requires in-depth examination."—[Official Report, 28 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 502.]
	As there was no such in-depth examination in Committee and on Second Reading, he may wish to comment on my modest suggestion that we introduce what is clearly an objective test.

David Ruffley: In the interests of clarity, will my hon. Friend confirm that the amendments are designed to make the Bill better and to make it good law, and that it is not his intention to destroy a Bill that will provide the protection that so many of our constituents want, especially in Bury St. Edmunds, where I have received a huge mailbag of letters from concerned people, most of them older people—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention should relate to the amendment under discussion.

Christopher Chope: I welcome my hon. Friend's intervention. I have no intention whatever of preventing good law from getting on to the statute book, but it is important that we as Members of this House should try to use the opportunities that we have to improve and clarify the Bill. One of the purposes of the amendments is to ensure that the Bill is clear and that it does not enable the Minister at some future stage to say that, as there is a residual risk that somebody might be injured, the Government will be justified in introducing draconian regulations. My hon. Friend will probably agree that there is no need to deal with such an issue at great length, but I hope that one or two other hon. Members will contribute to the debate.

George Osborne: Will my hon. Friend explain how the amendment would materially affect the Bill? I agree that the idea of ensuring that there is no risk is ludicrous and would mean that nobody could light a sparkler because of the risk of injury or damage to property. How would the amendment alter the way in which the legislation would work?

Christopher Chope: As the passage that I seek to amend is an introductory passage relating to the powers of the Secretary of State under clause 2, the amendment would not allow the Secretary of State to introduce in regulations changes securing that there was no risk of firework use having the consequences specified in the clause. She would be able to intervene only to ensure that the risk of incurring the specified consequences is controlled.

George Osborne: Does my hon. Friend accept that that is still a fairly subjective test? The word "risk" is subjective, and it would still be left to the Minister to decide what was an acceptable risk and what was not.

Christopher Chope: I accept that risk is subjective, but its total elimination is absolute, and it is that absolutism that I am trying to remove from the Bill. That is the essence of my proposal. I hope that both the promoter and the Minister will think that that is common sense and worthy of support.

Mark Field: I wish to make a very brief contribution, as, like many hon. Members who are present, I broadly support the aims of the Bill. I represent an urban seat and have been lobbied by many constituents who are very concerned about the noise nuisance.

Andrew Robathan: Including me.

Mark Field: I should say that they include my hon. Friend.
	The Conservatives have traditionally recognised, however, that such legislation, as an instinctive infringement on the individual's right of free action, is justified only on grounds of public safety or antisocial behaviour that harms or stands to harm others. I therefore share some of the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) in the sensible amendments that he has tabled to suggest that at least the absolute elimination of risk cannot sensibly be achieved.
	Like many hon. Members, I have some instinctive worries about the ever more intrusive role of government—and I do not make a narrow point about the current Administration as opposed to previous ones. For example, the proposed restrictions on smoking are based on purely social grounds, rather than necessarily those of harm. I am reminded that the last non-Conservative to represent my parliamentary seat was none other than John Stuart Mill, who had a three-year spell representing the constituency until 1868. I suspect that he might be seen as a Conservative nowadays, and "On Liberty" is a tome that I have read with great interest and would largely support, but the increasing public concern about injuries and public nuisance must not override the sense of what my hon. Friend proposes, which is to ensure that some sort of balance is in place.
	There is inevitably a risk with anything in life. Obviously, we instinctively view using fireworks as a hazardous activity. None the less, we need a workable law, as it would be a disaster to introduce an unworkable Bill and so not achieve all the good that is being proposed. The hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) said forcefully that there had been a great deal of consultation in the political sphere and with firework manufacturers and a range of different charities, many of which have been in touch with all of us as Members of Parliament. Let us ensure that the Bill is workable. The concern to do so is one of the reasons why we have had a fairly full debate so far.

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is right to say that the law must be workable. Does he agree that, if the Government failed to introduce regulations eliminating all risk of injury, they themselves would risk being liable to a court action taken by someone who had been injured and claimed that the Minister had failed to introduce such regulations?

Mark Field: That is a concern, although there is an equal risk that I may not entirely have understood all the implications of my hon. Friend's question. Above all, we need to ensure effective enforcement. I know that we will discuss that issue later in relation to the duties and financial responsibilities of local authorities, but it seems unacceptable for us to fill the statute book with yet more unworkable law. It is better to focus on ensuring that we introduce workable legislation.
	I wish the Bill Godspeed, but I hope that the Minister will seriously consider the points that have been made.

Vincent Cable: This string of amendments poses a bit of a dilemma to those of us who want the legislation to be introduced. I realise that there is a tight timetable and I do not want to speak at any great length.
	I raised my concern on Second Reading. In particular, I want to mention the substance of amendments Nos. 45 and 46, which would affect clause 2(3). I ask the Minister whether the subsections are necessary at all—a point that goes to the heart of what was said in respect of the previous group of amendments about whether there should be an objective measure of noise. If there were clear agreement on a proper decibel count, whether of 95 or 120, it would simply not be necessary to include in the Bill powers enabling the Minister to define the nature of distress in a very subjective way. So in part, my question is: is this provision really necessary? And what would happen if these regulations went to the courts, which probably would happen if a judicial review were launched against them? One can imagine a lawyer having great fun trying to get the Government's representative to explain, for example, why animals suffer distress but people suffer alarm, distress and anxiety. An Aquinas-type philosophical debate could easily ensue.
	I do not want to obstruct progress, but I do have anxiety about these clauses. I understand the logic of the amendments, which seem entirely sensible in this context. I hope that the Minister will work hard to explain to us why these subsections are necessary to preserve the spirit of the Bill.

George Osborne: The hon. Gentleman says that the lawyers would have a field day if some of the amendments were accepted, but would they not have a field day if the Bill were passed unamended? For example, as it stands the Secretary of State will be responsible for introducing regulations to ensure that there is "no risk" that the use of fireworks will result in the
	"death of persons or injury, alarm, distress"
	or even "anxiety". That is such a broad provision that it would virtually prohibit all fireworks.

Vincent Cable: Indeed. Perhaps I did not make myself sufficiently clear: in talking about the dangers of legal ambiguity I was referring to the Bill as drafted, not to the amendments. So I take the hon. Gentleman's point entirely.

Richard Allan: I shall be brief, as I do not want to obstruct progress on the Bill. I simply want to point out my one concern, which relates to amendment No. 46. It would redefine the problems that may be caused to animals by removing the concept of distress and referring only to
	"death, injury or unnecessary suffering".
	The concept of distress is one of my primary motivations in supporting this legislation, as it is for many people. I have been lobbied by perhaps the most effective of my constituents in this regard—my mother. Her dog Gipsy suffers immensely every time that fireworks go off, and such suffering brings home the reality of this issue. My mother and many other constituents have said that it is a question of balancing the right of pet owners to have nights during which they can sleep without their dogs jumping into bed with them, against the right of others to enjoy fireworks. That issue is at the heart of this legislation.
	I am concerned at the possible removal of the provision relating to distress, and that the amendments might raise the threshold at which regulations could be brought in beyond their most effective point.

Christopher Chope: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that the current provision, unless it is amended, will extend not just to domestic and captive animals, but to wild animals? How easy does he think it will be to enforce the distress provision in relation to wild animals?

Richard Allan: My understanding is that the provision will simply enable the Secretary of State to introduce regulations, and what we are doing is setting out the Secretary of State's motivations in doing so. I would trust any Secretary of State, from whichever party, to take a reasonable stance in terms of introducing regulations. However, when they do so, I should like them to be motivated by the question of the causing of unnecessary distress to animals. I would not expect any Secretary of State in their right mind to introduce regulations because distress might have been caused to a wild animal that was far away from people's homes. We must use a certain amount of common sense in judging this issue, but I do want the Secretary of State to have the power to take distress caused to pets into account in deciding whether to introduce regulations. That is covered in the original wording, and my worry is that it would not be covered if the amendment were accepted.

Andrew Robathan: I shall be extremely brief. The amendments draw attention to some very real worries to which the Bill gives rise. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who made a very sensible contribution, referred to his anxiety about the amendments. I am not a lawyer, I am glad to say, but I notice that, in the context of subsection (3)(a), such anxiety might lead him—or someone like him—to take the Government to court to require that the Secretary of State make regulations to contain that anxiety. The Bill's proposer and the hon. Gentleman might therefore consider that the drafting is not quite all that it should be.

Edward Leigh: I shall also be brief, particularly in view of the progress that we are making and the very moderate way in which the Bill is being promoted. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) did not really have time to deal with amendments Nos. 45 and 46 in his initial remarks. As drafted, the latter amendment would put the Bill on all fours—if that it the right way to put it—with the Protection of Animals Act 1911, which is an entirely sensible way to proceed. If the amendment were accepted, the Bill would then refer to
	"death, injury or unnecessary suffering to any domestic or captive animal".
	The promoter of the Bill undoubtedly did not want to draw it so widely that the Secretary of State would have the power to deal with any possible distress to wild animals. Of course we do not want to cause distress to wild animals, but we must also be in the business of framing sensible legislation that we can enforce. It is difficult to know how such a provision could be enforced in country areas such as the one that I represent. I suppose it is possible that people living in the countryside who let off fireworks in their garden could cause distress to wild animals—I do not know. I suspect that there is insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion one way or the other about the long-term consequences. In any event, it is entirely sensible to use the same language as that contained in the 1911 Act.
	There is one sensible point that we need to sum up in a sentence or two, and which was dealt with very well by the hon. Member for Twickenham. Including in the Bill a reference to there being "no risk" that fireworks will cause death, injury, alarm or distress will give rise to great difficulties. It will never be possible to enforce such a provision, and one would never be able to prove that there is no risk that a firework might cause distress; indeed, any kind of firework can do so. Up until last year, my own young son could not stand the thought of being outside when fireworks were being let off—he is now six and is getting a bit better about this matter—and was really frightened by them. We can never say that there is no risk, and in that regard the Bill's drafting is very wide.
	I should point out that the Minister unkindly accused me of wanting to kill the Bill. Perhaps she does not know that I used to hold her position as Minister with responsibility for consumer affairs; indeed, I was the Minister with responsibility for fireworks. In the early 1990s, we had to deal with precisely the same issues that are being dealt with now, and there was precisely the same pressure for such legislation. Like her, we simply tried to strike a balance, and that is all that we are doing today. A Bill that means that any risk that causes people any anxiety could lead to the Secretary of State's introducing draconian regulations is a step too far.
	All that the Government are trying to do, and all that previous Conservative Government tried to do, in this very difficult area is to strike a balance: to allow people to enjoy fireworks in a sensible way, while providing some protection for the public. However, I am afraid that there is a small minority of people who absolutely loathe fireworks, and who will use any mechanism to outlaw them altogether, or to corral them into a very few public displays. That said, I know that that is not the Minister's intention, and that in summing up this debate, she can give us the reassurances that we seek.

Melanie Johnson: I can assure the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) that I accept his assurance that he is not in the business of wrecking the Bill; I was merely pointing out the contrast with his activities in 1998. I am therefore grateful for his reassurance on this occasion.
	I shall discuss the various amendments and their effect, as it is important that the House be aware of our understanding of them. Amendment No. 45 would not in fact add anything to the Bill. As drafted, the Bill refers to the
	"death of persons or injury, alarm, distress or anxiety to persons".
	That gives us a rounded and comprehensive indication of the problems that people face in respect of fireworks. "Unnecessary suffering", the wording in the amendment, is much vaguer. It would leave the Secretary of State a much freer hand—something that the hon. Gentleman has argued against, and which I feel less, not more comfortable with. Therefore I am puzzled as to why the amendment is before the House, in light of all that the Conservatives have said so far.
	Amendment No. 46 is similar to the previous amendment in that it waters down the protection requirements of the Bill. The Bill currently states,
	"death of animals or injury or distress to animals".
	That means all animals, and includes intentional distress or injury to wild animals. Conservative Members do not seem to want that protection afforded to wild animals, and I have some sympathy with where they are coming from, in so far as I think that it is far less likely that injury will occur to wild animals. However, I do not support the amendment, as I think the Bill is better as currently drafted, because there is no doubt in any of our minds that injury or distress to a wild animal or group of wild animals could be as great as it would be to a domestic or captive animal or group of animals.

Christopher Chope: Does that mean that the Minister, and indeed the Government, are in favour of amending the 1911 Act to widen its application to all wild animals?

Melanie Johnson: That is a matter for my colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, because that legislation comes within their remit, so I cannot comment on what would happen to that legislation. All I can say is that this provision is appropriate and I stand by the Bill as drafted and presented to the House today.
	In response to amendments Nos. 41 to 44, I agree that clause 2(1) does look a little strange, but in fact it is a well-crafted and sensible provision. The first limb, paragraph (a), is needed for cases when a ban is considered necessary and relevant. I am sure that Conservative Members would support all of us in thinking that there are occasions when a ban is actually necessary. The second limb, paragraph (b), covers regulation short of a ban. Therefore both limbs are needed. "Controlling" the risk, as suggested by the tabled amendment, does not offer the same level of protection as both the existing parts of the Bill.
	I point out in that connection that the purpose is to ensure that there is no risk of the consequences specified in subsection (3), which are the death of persons, the death of animals, and the destruction of or damage to property. It is not that there is no risk of something, because I entirely agree with Conservative Members that this is not a risk-free world and we are not living in a world where "no risk" is a sensible objective for any area of life, least of all this one. There will always be risks associated with the use of fireworks and I believe it is the business of the House today to try to ensure that we get the right balance between, on one hand, reducing the dangers and disruption and disorder that are being caused in our communities, which have led so many members of the public, from every constituency, to write to their Member of Parliament, asking us to take more measures to deal with that risk; and on the other, ensuring that people can continue to enjoy fireworks in the way that they always have and in the way that I did as a child in my family when I was growing up and children continue to do today.

Edward Leigh: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Melanie Johnson: I have finished.

Christopher Chope: I am sorry that the Minister is being so short with some hon. Members today, because this is an important proposal. It has won support from a number of other contributors to the debate but the Minister has more or less said, "Because we have produced this particular text, it is correct and it is not worth talking about trying to amend it." That is the spirit of intransigence and inflexibility that leads to trouble with legislation.

Melanie Johnson: I am very happy to hear what hon. Members have to say on this point. I am simply seeking to reassure the hon. Gentleman as to the interpretation of the Bill before us today, and of the intentions of the subsections that we are discussing. It is important that people understand why the Government have drafted them as they have, and why we still think that is right, even in light of the points that the hon. Gentleman has made.

Christopher Chope: The Minister has not really addressed the issue of how she thinks it is reasonable that a Minister should have the legal responsibility to secure that there is no risk that the use of fireworks will cause distress to wild animals. How can the Government take upon themselves responsibility for securing, to use the exact words, that there is "no risk" whatever that the use of fireworks will cause distress to wild animals? Are we a madhouse? Do we really think the Government should take that role for themselves? Are we really legislating to give them such a role? I think not. Therefore I, with other hon. Members—many of my party, but others too— cautioned the Minister that what was contained in clause 2—

Edward Leigh: I wish that the Minister would reply to that point about animals. It is a very good point.
	The Minister made some progress in the summing up. I wanted to intervene on her but she sat down rather quickly. She seemed to accept that we do not live in a risk-free society and that there will always be some sort of risk, even a minimal risk, that fireworks might cause death or distress to people. The words that a Minister utters at the Dispatch Box are important, and the hon. Lady seemed to accept that entirely sensible point of view; but for some consequential reason or some drafting reason, she maintains that the words "no risk" must appear in the Bill. That is why I am slightly confused. I hope that my hon. Friend will try to help me on this point.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend asks me to help! I cannot understand why the Government are not prepared to accept the points that we are making about what may be described as a contradiction at the very beginning of clause 2(1), but the notion of trying to eliminate all risk from fireworks is of course the agenda of those who wish to ban fireworks outright. It was encapsulated quite well in the words of the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) on Second Reading, when he asked:
	"Can he assure the House that the restrictions on sales to which he refers will ensure that fireworks that can maim and kill children and young people will not be available for use at private parties?"—[Official Report, 28 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 484.]
	Any firework could maim or kill a young child, and the hon. Gentleman was asking for an absolute assurance.

Melanie Johnson: I will try to explain again to the hon. Gentleman. Paragraphs (a) and (b) are alternatives. It is not the case that (a) will always apply, because (b) says,
	"or for securing that the risk that the use of fireworks will have those consequences is the minimum that is compatible with their being used."
	Therefore there is an option (a) which is related to the need to ban and an option (b) which is related to the need to make regulation; that is the reason. We are not talking about a statement about how much risk there is in the world. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about what the risks are and I agree that we must strike a balance.

Christopher Chope: I think we are reaching a clear position on this now. The Minister has openly said that paragraph (a) enables the Government and the Secretary of State to ban. My hon. Friends and I are concerned about that, so we wish to introduce wording that is less absolutist. We are disappointed.

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is on to a very important point. Perhaps the Minister would intervene again to explain in what circumstances the Government could seek to ban all fireworks. Why does the Minister feel that the Government need that option?

Christopher Chope: I give way to the Minister.

Melanie Johnson: The point is that the purpose of the measure is not to ban all fireworks at all. I am not aware of any Labour or Opposition Member who has any desire to ban all fireworks—quite the contrary. The Bill is crucial if fireworks are to remain available to the general public under the right conditions. Without it, there is a danger that those who support a ban will get the upper hand. I entirely agree that there are people who want a full ban, but they are not represented in the Chamber today or among hon. Members. We want to be able to implement bans under certain circumstances, and I am sure that Conservative Members would agree with that. We have already taken steps by using existing powers to ban fireworks that were considered dangerous. Bangers have been banned, and we need to be able to continue to do such things.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for that long intervention. I hope that it provided clarification, although I am not convinced.

Andrew Murrison: I wonder whether the Minister's dilemma would be sorted neatly by the deletion of subsection (1)(a). She could then rely on subsection (1)(b), and any talk of banning things would be eliminated.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is on to a good point. I have been kicking myself quietly for not tabling such an amendment because it would have encapsulated our case more clearly, given the Minister's understanding of the more convoluted amendments. No one wants to prevent the Bill from making progress but we want to protect ourselves against the possibility of a future Secretary of State being keen to ban fireworks outright and using the Bill to justify that. As the Minister will appreciate, no Government can bind their successors. The powers in the Bill—we shall address clause 2(2), which the Minister wishes to remove, in a minute—go to the root of what a future Government might be able to do, which is why I am keen to circumscribe them.

Melanie Johnson: Let me make it absolutely plain that the provisions relate to a category of firework or situation for which a ban might be necessary. They would not ban fireworks. We used powers to ban bangers—they are no longer on the market—because they were identified as dangerous fireworks that caused many injuries and much distress. The Bill contains an equivalent provision to allow us to make a ban when that is considered necessary under the objectives in subsection (3). I hope that I am explaining myself sufficiently clearly to the hon. Gentleman because I think he misunderstands the intention behind the provisions. I assure Conservative Members that the drafting was primarily a job for the parliamentary counsel. They bring their wisdom and experience to bear to ensure that legislation is right when it comes before the House.

Christopher Chope: The Minister has explained herself and I hope that her clarification proves to be correct. I doubt whether it is worth pressing the amendment to a Division because it is narrow—it would only substitute the words "there is no" with the word "the". We have had a useful debate because the Minister told us the intentions behind the measure, and I am sure that if worries remain, they may be raised in another place.
	I am disappointed that the Minister does not accept our point about wild animals. How could we possibly legislate to eliminate distress caused to wild animals by fireworks? How could that be policed and how would one know where the wild animals were? The suggestion is ludicrous. However, the Minister seems to be intransigent and I am conscious that amendment No. 44 is part of a group and does not lend itself easily to a vote, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Melanie Johnson: I beg to move Government amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 5 [Clause 2], leave out subsection (2).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 47, in page 2, line 16, at end insert—
	'Before making fireworks regulations the Secretary of State must issue a full regulatory impact assessment setting out details of the costs and benefits and the wider economic social and environmental impact of the proposed regulations'.
	No. 48, in page 2, line 18, leave out 'twelve' and insert 'six'.
	No. 49, in page 2, line 25, leave out paragraph (b).

Melanie Johnson: In Committee on 30 April, an amendment was accepted as a result of a concern about the nature of the powers in the Bill. It was tabled to ensure that any regulations arising from the Bill would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. However, we have had more time to consider the relevance of that amendment. Government amendment No. 1 will reverse the amendment accepted in Committee and restore the Bill to its original form. I hope that the reason for that will become clear.
	Clause 2(2) is technically inefficient. No orders as such will be made under the Bill but fireworks regulations will be made under clause 2 that will be subject to the negative procedure under clause 16(3). Fireworks regulations are intended to fill gaps in safety regulations that are made under section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. Fireworks regulations address both the use and supply of fireworks. Safety regulations are already subject to the negative procedure and an additional advantage of fireworks regulations being subject to the same procedure is that an excessive bureaucratic regulatory process would be avoided by permitting a single set of regulations to be made using powers in both the Bill and the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
	It is worth noting that given parliamentary concerns about powers such as those in clauses 1(2) and 14(3)— so-called Henry VIII powers—during the passage of the Fireworks Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) in 1998, regulations made under those clauses, which would not be fireworks regulations made under clause 2, would be subject to the more restrictive affirmative procedure under clause 16(2), which I mentioned when we considered amendment No. 40. My Department's view is that fireworks regulations do not involve considerations of special importance that might render the affirmative procedure appropriate.
	I make it clear to hon. Members that we accepted the amendment in Committee in good faith but that I was subsequently advised that it would cause much difficulty owing to a conflict with regulations made under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, which are subject to the negative procedure. That is why we wish to withdraw our acceptance of the amendment. It is important that there is full consultation on all matters and we intend that draft regulations would be produced before consideration of regulations under either the negative or affirmative procedure. However, I am advised that clause 2(2) would cause much difficulty and bureaucracy in order to achieve the same effect, which makes it highly undesirable. The Government hope that hon. Members will accept the amendment.

Andrew Robathan: I do not doubt the Minister's good faith. Like her, I sometimes tread with trepidation in the fields of parliamentary technicalities, and therefore rely to a large extent on the advice of counsel. However, I have a question for her that goes to the heart of the matter. Clause 2(2) states:
	"No order shall be made under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."
	In other words, regulations are to be subject to negative, not affirmative, action. If that subsection is withdrawn, is it possible that, without a statutory instrument or order of any sort, a future Government might introduce under clause 2 a blanket ban on fireworks? The Bill allows the Government enormous powers, and I am concerned that they could ban whatever they like without affirmative action. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me on that.

Christopher Chope: For those of us who are concerned about changes of mind by Ministers, this episode does not give us much confidence. In Committee, the Minister said:
	"I am happy to accept amendment No. 2 if the Committee so desires."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 30 April 2003; c. 4.]
	The Committee did so desire, which resulted in subsection (2) being added to the Bill. That is the very subsection that the Minister now seeks to take out through the Government amendment, for the reasons that she explained. I hope that she has suitably castigated her advisers in Committee for not having drawn her attention to the difficulties that would arise were she, in a fit of generosity, to accept the amendment, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). However, that is all in the past. I leave it to the House to judge whether it is sensible to accept the Government amendment, because it will result in there being less control over the regulation-making process than there would be if subsection (2) were retained.
	I am sorry that the Minister chose not to comment on my amendments.

Melanie Johnson: That is because I would rather hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say first, and respond later.

Christopher Chope: I accept that.
	I hope that the Government will accept amendment No. 47. It is more for the Government to accept it than the promoter of the Bill, because I am sure that he would have no difficulty with it whatsoever. It would require the Secretary of State to issue a regulatory impact assessment before making regulations. One might have thought it unnecessary to legislate for that, given that it is already Government policy, but I have to report to the House my disappointment that the regulatory impact assessment that was promised for this Bill was signed by the Minister only yesterday, and I received a draft of it only the day before. I was told that the reason was that the Minister was returning from Slovenia, or possibly Slovakia—somewhere beginning with "S" in eastern Europe—on Thursday, and would not be able to sign it until then. I told the parliamentary clerk at the Department of Trade and Industry that that was not satisfactory, because it meant that we would not be able to see it before the deadline for the tabling of amendments to the Bill.
	The Minister should have a go at her officials for having failed to produce by Second Reading an RIA for a private Member's Bill that the Government are supporting. The Cabinet Office Minister responsible for the regulatory impact assessment process has expressed concern about the matter. On 3 April, there was no less than a written ministerial statement by that gentleman, which said:
	"A baseline for measuring the level of compliance with the Regulatory Impact Assessment is today being placed on the website . . . An exercise in December 2002 to establish a snapshot of the level of compliance provided a figure of 92 per cent. We will keep this under six monthly review and strive not only to retain this level of compliance but improve it. In addition, we recognise the need to increase the quality of RIAs and the value they add to the policy making process. We are working closely with departments to identify ways of achieving this."—[Official Report, 3 April 2003; Vol. 402, 70WS.]
	That was a written ministerial statement, so we did not have the chance to ask any questions. The Minister of State did not comment on why the regulatory impact assessment that should have been produced for the Fireworks Bill on 28 February had not been produced by then. I tabled a parliamentary question in March and was told that the assessment was in the process of being produced. As I said, it was only when I phoned the parliamentary clerk to the DTI on Wednesday to ask what had happened that the RIA was forthcoming.
	That is why amendment No. 47 should be built into the Bill. It is difficult enough for the House to deal with Bills on which amendments can be tabled. However, it is even more difficult when the House has to deal with regulations introducing various restrictions to fireworks without any full regulatory impact assessment having been conducted—notwithstanding what the Government say about the importance of such assessments.
	The person in charge of the better regulation taskforce—or is it the regulatory impacts assessment unit, I do not know—addressed a lunch of parliamentarians not long ago. In response to a question, he said that he needed our help—the help of parliamentarians—to make the system work. He advised that one way of making it work would be to embarrass Ministers when they had not complied with the requirements that had been laid down.
	Let me remind the House that those requirements are contained in a document—quite a thick document, which I downloaded because it is often difficult to acquire these items in hard-copy form—called "Better Policy Making: A Guide to Regulatory Impact Assessment". It was produced in 1998 and embellished with a foreword by the Prime Minister. It worth reminding the House and embarrassing the Minister with what he said:
	"In August 1998, I announced that no proposal for regulation which has an impact on businesses, charities or voluntary bodies, should be considered by Ministers without a regulatory impact assessment being carried out. I have charged the Cabinet Office to ensure departments deliver better regulation through full compliance with the regulatory impact assessment process. Where regulations or alternative measures are introduced, this should be done in a light touch way, with decisions informed by a full regulatory impact assessment, which includes details of not only the obvious costs and benefits of the proposal but also the wider economic, social and environmental impacts. New regulations should only be introduced when other alternatives have first been considered and rejected, and where the benefits justify the costs."
	Hon. Members will note that some of that language is adopted in my amendment.
	The document stresses the full requirements of the process by which the Government are to introduce regulatory impact assessments. It makes it clear beyond peradventure that, for a private Member's Bill supported by the Government, a regulatory impact assessment should be available on Second Reading. We have barely had one today in time for Report and Third Reading, which is not good enough.
	I hope that the Minister will accept that, because of the manifest failure of her Department to comply with the requirements of the Prime Minister—and, indeed, good common sense—amendment No. 47 should be put on the statute book. I hope that she will make that concession.
	I hope that the Minister will also respond to the other amendments in the group. Amendment No. 48 is modest and would ensure that, if the Government needed to legislate instantly for emergencies or other eventualities without seeking the approval of Parliament, any such legislation would apply for only six months rather than a year. That is a sensible amendment. However, the regulatory impact assessments need to be produced in better time than in the past.
	Many hon. Members will not have seen the regulatory impact assessment that has been produced for this Bill because the Minister signed it only yesterday, and I am not even sure that there is a copy in the Library—as there should be. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that. The RIA identifies a concern shared by almost all hon. Members about enforcement. Many rules and regulations already exist to control the use of fireworks, but the problems our constituents face are caused by lack of enforcement.
	The RIA mentions costs and the Minister, in Committee, talked about the importance of getting tough and sorting out the problems that our constituents face. That is why I was concerned to read in the RIA that the Bill is not expected to add to the burden on the police. Most of our constituents expect that the Bill will result in the police becoming hyperactive in dealing with firework abuse and antisocial behaviour. In paragraph 9.3, the RIA states:
	"The Police already have a role in firework enforcement and are unlikely to have any extra duties as a result of this Bill."
	That will come as a disappointment to many of us, because the Bill will not be enforced unless by the police.
	The RIA also sets out some of the costs associated with the process, and it seems that most of the burden will fall on local authorities. The assessment states:
	"With regard to clause 4—the use of fireworks outside of hours—it should be noted that only 35 per cent. of local authorities currently offer a full night time noise response service. Furthermore, 18 per cent. of local authorities do not have any out-of-hours noise response cover. This limitation, however, is expected to change with the proposed amendments to the 1996 Noise Act—making the application of the Act mandatory for all local authorities. There is therefore likely to be little in the way of an extra financial burden arising from the enforcement of clause 4 in the Bill."
	Despite the short time I had after receiving the RIA so late, I looked at how the Government intended to amend the Noise Act 1996. The changes mentioned in the RIA are contained in clause 47 of the Anti-social Behaviour Bill. I discovered that, far from putting a duty on local authorities, clause 47 will relax their responsibilities to control noise nuisance, including the abuse of noisy fireworks, after 11 pm. That is amazing, because most issues raised in correspondence about fireworks relate the use of fireworks to antisocial behaviour. The Government are in a mess, because the regulatory impact assessment is not consistent with clause 47 of the Anti-social Behaviour Bill. I am sure that if more hon. Members had had the chance to read the RIA, they too would have become concerned, because it shows that the Government are talking tough on dealing with antisocial behaviour relating to fireworks but have hardly anything substantive with which to address the problem.

Vincent Cable: I want to say a few words in support of amendment No. 47, which relates to the regulatory impact assessment. I confess to being something of an anorak about these assessments. There are a few of us slightly sad characters in the House—I know that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) is another—who actually read these things, and I have obviously been deprived of this particular one.
	It is important to stress why regulatory impact assessments are important. There is consensus on both sides of the House—I do not think that the issue divides the Government and the Opposition—that, whichever Government are in power, there is remorseless pressure to extend regulation, and successive Governments find that pressure difficult to resist. There are all kinds of compelling reasons why regulations are introduced. One of the brakes or disciplines in the process is that, when a new regulation is introduced, it should be subjected to a proper cost-benefit analysis.
	The Cabinet Office has devoted a lot of time and energy to improving the situation. I have been tabling written questions on the subject to Ministers for about five years to try to ensure that all Ministries carry out such assessments consistently. Practice is improving, and the National Audit Office suggested six months ago that there had been improvement in the way in which the Government handled the assessments, but that there were many gaps and Ministers had differential levels of performance.
	This is an important issue, and I am surprised that the provision outlined in amendment No. 47 is not already written into the Bill. If it were Government legislation, I think that it probably would have been. I commend the provision on principle, although the one technical point that I guess lies behind the amendment is that the Government will claim that they have an overall regulatory impact assessment for the Bill as a whole. Since this is a framework Bill, however, that will not tell us much. Common sense suggests that it is the specific regulations that will result in particular costs and benefits, and those are the questions that we need the answers to.
	I would have thought that it was very much in the present spirit of the Department of Trade and Industry—which, I know, is a liberalising Department that tries to get these things right—to agree to this proposal without difficulty, and I hope that the Minister will be able to make a concession on this amendment.

Melanie Johnson: First, I shall inform the House of the reason that the draft regulatory impact assessment was not published sooner. It had been produced, but the actual publication failed to take place due to an administrative oversight. I can only apologise to hon. Members for their not having had more chance to study it, but I understand that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) received a copy following a telephone conversation with a parliamentary clerk. I appreciate that that was not the case for all hon. Members, and that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) has been deprived of his anorak activity. I am sure that he is looking forward to catching up on that over the weekend.

Christopher Chope: Will the Minister tell us where the regulatory impact assessment is now? Is it in the House of Commons Library?

Melanie Johnson: It is indeed. Copies have been placed in the Library; it is available.
	Like both the hon. Gentlemen who have just spoken, I am a firm enthusiast for regulatory impact assessments. They are an extraordinarily good thing, and we want them carried out on a wider basis. We also want them carried out more effectively in Europe, and we have been working hard to that end. It is important that, as each aspect of any implementing regulations come forward from the Bill, the detail of those regulations should be subject to a proper RIA, and that will indeed be done. I have no problem with amendment No. 47 advocating such action. The amendment is unnecessary, however, because it is already a requirement of Government procedure that such an assessment should be carried out. I am perfectly happy to accept the amendment in the spirit of the way in which it was moved, however.
	On the point raised by the hon. Member for Christchurch about the police, the issue is whether the duties arising from the Bill will be more extensive than they were before. The duties do not necessarily extend police responsibilities. It is on the basis of the duties referred to that the assessment must be carried out. 12.30 pm
	Amendment No. 48 refers to emergency regulations. Such regulations are not often made, but when they are it is fairly usual for them to last a year. If the hon. Gentleman thinks about the detail, he may foresee problems with a six-month period. It might, for instance, expire shortly before autumn, when the firework season will be in full swing. This is not a huge issue of principle, but I would prefer the regulations to last for a year, although we do not expect to have to use them.
	If amendment No. 49 were accepted, we would not be able to alter or amend regulations. I do not think any of us want that. The whole point of regulation, as dealt with in the House, is that it can be altered to take account of some detail or change in circumstances. That is not the case with primary legislation.

Andrew Robathan: Can the Minister answer a question that I asked earlier about Government amendment No. 1? If the draft order were not subject to the affirmative procedure, would the Government have power to impose an outright ban?

Melanie Johnson: I can give the hon. Gentleman a categorical assurance that his anxieties are misplaced.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Amendments made: No. 1, in page 2, line 5, leave out subsection (2).
	No. 47, in page 2, line 16, at end insert—
	'Before making fireworks regulations the Secretary of State must issue a full regulatory impact assessment setting out details of the costs and benefits and the wider economic social and environmental impact of the proposed regulations'.—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]

Clause 3
	 — 
	Prohibition of Supply Etc. to Young Persons

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 39, leave out 'an age so specified' and insert
	'the age of 18 years'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 42, leave out 'an age so specified' and insert
	'the age of 18 years'.

Christopher Chope: I thank the Minister for accepting amendment No. 47. Amendments Nos. 7 and 9 are intended to introduce more clarity and precision. Clause 3 refers to "young persons". Does that mean people aged 16, 18, 21 or 25? I regard anyone over 50 but under 60 as young. Why does the Bill not give a precise definition—people aged 18, for instance? That is not asking very much.
	On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) said:
	"Clause 3 would ban sales to minors. The intention is that the current minimum age of 18 should be retained."—[Official Report, 28 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 482.]
	The amendments would ensure that the promoter's intention was enshrined in law, clearly and unambiguously.

Melanie Johnson: I understand why the hon. Gentleman has tabled the amendment but certain category 1 fireworks are currently available to 16-year-olds: party poppers, Christmas crackers and throw downs. The amendment would mean that regulations implementing the Bill limited all fireworks to 18-year-olds. I think that those are the sort of fireworks that people commonly have and that they are generally regarded as pretty risk free and pretty harmless. In the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's earlier comments about category 1 fireworks, I hope that we will not be over-prescriptive. It is for that reason that specifying a single age may be a problem. Therefore, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

Christopher Chope: The purpose of my amendment was not to specify ages under 18. What I was concerned about was that the power could be used to prohibit those aged 18 or over from buying fireworks. If the Minister is prepared to give an assurance that there is no intention to introduce restrictions for people who are over 18 but who are still described as young people, I will have no problem.

Melanie Johnson: I have twin daughters who are still, just about, 18. It is unlikely that the Government will wish to extend the prohibition to those aged over 18. It is just those under 18 who are the issue.

Christopher Chope: In the light of what the Minister said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4
	 — 
	Prohibition of Supply Etc. in Certain Circumstances

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 52, in page 3, line 4, leave out from 'from' to 'using' in line 5.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 53, in page 3, line 7, leave out from 'from' to 'using' in line 8.
	No. 64, in page 3, line 16, at end insert—
	'( ) Fireworks regulations may not prohibit the supply of fireworks for private use on residential premises.'.
	No. 67, in page 3, line 16, at end insert—
	'( ) Firework regulations may not prohibit the supply of fireworks in such a way as to interfere with the celebration of major religious and national festivals.'.
	No. 55, in clause 5, page 3, line 44, at end add—
	'( ) Nothing in this section shall apply to—
	(a) any person whose trade or business is the professional organisation or professional operation of firework displays;
	(b) any person whose trade or business, or part of whose trade or business, is the supply of fireworks or assemblies, for the purposes of supplying them in accordance with the provisions of these Regulations;
	(c) any local authority for the purposes of a firework display;
	(d) any person for use, in the course of a trade or business of his, for special effects purposes in the theatre, on film or on television;
	(e) any local authority, enforcement officer or other body, where that authority or body:
	(i) has enforcement powers, conferred by or under enactment, applying to the firework or assembly in question; and
	(ii) before it purchases the goods, informs the supplier that the purchase is to be made for the purposes of ascertaining whether any provision made by or under any enactment and relating to the safety of the goods has been contravened in relation to those goods;
	(f) any department of the Government of the United Kingdom for the purposes of a firework display put on by that department for use by that department at a national public celebration or a national commemorative event or for use by that department for research or investigations purposes;
	(g) any person who:
	(i) is in business as a supplier of goods designed and intended for use in conjunction with fireworks or assemblies; and
	(ii) intends to use the firework or assembly in question solely for the purposes of testing those goods to ensure that, when used in conjunction with fireworks or assemblies of the same type, they will perform their intended function or comply with any provision made by or under any enactment and relating to the safety of those goods; or
	(h) any establishment of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown for the purposes of a firework display or for use at a national public celebration or a national commemorative event.'.
	No. 60, in page 4, line 30, leave out clause 7.
	No. 61, in clause 7, page 5, line 13, at end add—
	'( ) Nothing in this section shall apply to—
	(a) any person whose trade or business is the professional organisation or professional operation of firework displays;
	(b) any person whose trade or business, or part of whose trade or business, is the supply of fireworks or assemblies, for the purpose of supplying them in accordance with the provisions of these Regulations;
	(c) any local authority for the purposes of a firework display;
	(d) any person for use, in the course of a trade or business of his, for special effects purposes in the theatre, on film or on television;
	(e) any local authority, enforcement officer or other body, where that authority or body:
	(i) has enforcement powers, conferred by or under enactment, applying to the firework or assembly in question; and
	(ii) before it purchases the goods, informs the supplier that the purchase is to be made for the purposes of ascertaining whether any provision made by or under any enactment and relating to the safety of the goods has been contravened in relation to those goods;
	(f) any department of the Government of the United Kingdom for the purposes of a firework display put on by that department for use by that department at a national public celebration or a national commemorative event or for use by that department for research or investigations purposes;
	(g) any person who:
	(i) is in business as a supplier of goods designed and intended for use in conjunction with fireworks or assemblies; and
	(ii) intends to use the firework or assembly in question solely for the purposes of testing those goods to ensure that, when used in conjunction with fireworks or assemblies of the same type, they will perform their intended function or comply with any provision made by or under any enactment and relating to the safety of those goods; or
	(h) any establishment of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown for the purposes of a firework display or for use at a national public celebration or a national commemorative event.'.

Christopher Chope: Some of the amendments are in the names of my hon. Friends, so I will not speak at length on those, but amendments Nos. 52 and 53 concentrate on the mischief of misuse rather than supply. I think that our constituents are concerned about the misuse of fireworks. There are already controls over supply under existing regulations. As the Minister said earlier, there are controls over safety. The big lacuna in the law and in the regulation-making power at the moment is in relation to the use of fireworks. That is why I seek in amendments Nos. 52 and 53 to cut out all the other guff and concentrate on misuse.

Bill Tynan: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the Police Federation has recently suggested that we should change the law in order to ensure that possession of fireworks is an offence, so that it could be dealt with. I ask him to withdraw the amendment. The issue of supplying, purchasing and possessing fireworks is very important and should be left in the Bill.

Christopher Chope: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman raises the issue of possession. Is someone who has fireworks in his possession going to be arrested by the police and charged with possessing fireworks? Surely the biggest problem is when the fireworks are used. There are already restrictions on the use of fireworks in the street. If we are talking about giving powers to the police to deal with people who are just possessing fireworks, are we not going unnecessarily far?

Bill Tynan: The hon. Gentleman should accept, and I hope that he will, that minors often have fireworks in their possession and the police are powerless to deal with that situation. Sometimes, the minors are responsible for antisocial behaviour. On that basis and in those circumstances, it is vital that we give them the power to deal, if necessary, with the issue of possession and supply.

Christopher Chope: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I am not sure that the Bill will deal with the situation that he described. As I understand it, one of the big concerns is that it is not possible to introduce a fixed-penalty notice for anyone under the age of 18. The hon. Gentleman refers to young people and there are already restrictions on the supply of fireworks to them. Will the police be given powers to seize the fireworks in their possession?
	The issue is similar to that of children or young people carrying drink in public places. I believe that the European Court of Human Rights has said that the police can seize cans of drink in the possession of young people only if the young people are consuming the drink or have started to do so. Will we be able to enforce a requirement that young people are not allowed to carry fireworks in a public place? Should they be subject to all these regulations if they have fireworks in their possession? That is my concern. I would like us to address the problem of misuse—and not just supply and possession—much more effectively.

Bill Tynan: rose—

Christopher Chope: The hon. Gentleman is itching to intervene again, but I want to make a final point. I hope that he is as alarmed as I am by what is said in the regulatory impact assessment about nothing in the Bill placing an extra burden on the police or causing them any more hassle. He seems to be under the illusion that the Bill will enable the police to be proactive in dealing with the hooliganism and antisocial behaviour associated with the use of fireworks in public places.

Bill Tynan: I might not be explaining my position properly but, in the real world, individuals under the age of 18 sometimes obtain a supply of fireworks or purchase them from rogue dealers so that they are in possession of fireworks. Is it not a good idea for the police to have the opportunity to deal with that issue? In those circumstances, the hon. Gentleman should realise that it is in the best interests of the individual, as well as the population in general, for the police—I am sure that they would use their powers in a limited fashion—to be able to deal with the problem of minors having possession of fireworks.

Christopher Chope: We are both keen on achieving the same objective, namely reducing to a minimum the misuse of fireworks. I have heard what the hon. Gentleman said, and I shall listen with interest to the Minister's remarks. The hon. Gentleman has been persuaded by some of my arguments and, in the spirit of the debate, I may well yet be persuaded by his.

Edward Leigh: I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 64 and 67, which are in my name. Amendment No. 64 deals with the supply of fireworks for private use, and we have already made progress on that matter. The Bill's promoter has already said that he does not want it to apply to class 1 and 2 fireworks. Class 4 fireworks are only to be used by explosive factories; they are not sold to the public. Class 3 fireworks have a safety distance of 25 m and they are used in displays. As a result of the assurances by the Bill's promoter that he does not want it to apply to class 1 and 2 fireworks and that he would be happy for an amendment to be tabled in another place, my fears, which I tried to deal with in amendment No. 64, have probably been addressed.
	I have primarily been concerned with protecting the traditional private family firework display in people's gardens. I look forward to hearing what the Minister and the promoter say about amendment No. 64. Perhaps it is possible to obtain class 3 fireworks for a private garden display. I do not know what the legal situation is on that or what the supply situation would be. It may be that we have dealt with that issue.
	The more substantial point that I want to raise relates to amendment No. 67. I do not know what the technical objection may be, but I hope that the Minister reassures me about the issues that it raises. As well as protecting the private traditional display with one's family, I want to avoid the situation in which people can let off fireworks only around 5 November. I would not approve of that. I do not say that because I am a Catholic and would object to the fact that fireworks could be used only to celebrate the gunpowder plot, but because it raises an interesting point. We live in a varied society with many religious groups and types of people. I do not understand why we should gradually move bit by bit—as we are doing as a result of a ratchet-type effect—to let off fireworks only at that time of year. There is no reason why people should not be allowed—encouraged even—to let off fireworks around new year.
	We also have to recognise that there are other religious festivals, such as Hindu and Muslim festivals. A Conservative colleague came up to me in the corridor yesterday and said, "I don't know what you're doing about this Bill. The fact is I get loads of letters from people objecting to the fact that we get fireworks at all times of the year. They're used to celebrate Hindu festivals and some of my constituents don't like it." But that is the country we live in. If someone wants to celebrate a Hindu festival with fireworks, that might not be on 5 November. In the spirit of a liberal multicultural country, we should recognise people's ability to let off fireworks when they want to.
	Amendment No. 67 might not be necessary. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to make it clear that we recognise that people in our society will want to let off fireworks at different times of the year. I am not sure that many people would want to let them off on Bastille day, but if they want to, let them. There is, after all, an ever-growing French community. If it wants to let off fireworks, why not? Why should the ever-growing American community not let off fireworks on independence day? We do not want to be more and more restrictive. We have a voluntary agreement that makes it difficult for members of the public to obtain fireworks except around the period of 5 November and the new year. If the Minister reassures me on that, I shall be very happy.

Bill Tynan: The issue is important. In my constituency it is simple to purchase fireworks all year round. That is the fact of the matter and I am sure that it happens in many constituencies. However, when I formulated the ideas behind the Bill I was conscious that we should not disadvantage other multicultural groups. As a member of one of them, I recognise their value. I spoke to Hindu people about what could be done. That is why we suggest a two-tier licensing system that will give those who want to celebrate major religious or national festivals the opportunity to buy fireworks. I raised the matter on Second Reading; I recognise the fact that we live in a multicultural society, and the Bill takes account of the points that have been made. I ask the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) to withdraw his amendment.

Melanie Johnson: Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 would remove the prohibition on the supply of fireworks, and limit prohibition simply to the use of fireworks, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) has explained why that is not desirable. There are occasions on which the prohibition on supply is crucial, and we may want to consider prohibiting supply at certain times of day, in certain places or in certain circumstances. The amendments would therefore take a retrograde step because we would lose some of our ability to control the supply of fireworks. Conservative Members agree with us about the importance of that control, so I hope that they will not feel the need to press the amendments.
	Amendment No. 55 is too prescriptive. However, it was tabled before our discussions earlier this morning, and I hope that Conservative Members will recognise that the flexibility in the Bill is necessary so that we can consider who should be excepted from certain of the prohibitions imposed by any regulations made under the Bill.
	I turn now to amendment No. 60 on the licensing of suppliers. Many people, including consumers, enforcement officers, firework companies and many hon. Members feel that licensing is a suitable way further to control the availability of fireworks entering the market. The provisions are important because the Bill will allow local authorities to refuse and revoke licences to retailers who have previously breached conditions such as those relating to storage or supply to children.

John Baron: As I said, I fully support the Bill and, in particular, the idea of proper licensing and control of the sale of fireworks to the public, but may I tease out of the Minister any suggestions that the Government may have for addressing the issue that licensing will not solve all the problems? One could stockpile fireworks, for example. Although the Bill is helpful, and I support it, I would be grateful for a little clarification from the Minister.

Melanie Johnson: We are considering the issue carefully to make sure that the provisions are effective but not overly bureaucratic or burdensome for retailers. Where possible, we are trying to link them with revision of the regulations on the manufacture and storage of explosives, which obviously relate to the hon. Gentleman's point about storage. Those regulations are currently under review by the Health and Safety Executive, so there will be an opportunity to tackle that.
	Amendment No. 61 is very similar to amendment No. 55, so I need say nothing further on that. Turning to amendment No. 64, I think that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) accepts that things have changed since he tabled the amendment. It would remove our ability to create a watershed for residential use, and we would all regret that. In any event, the hon. Gentleman indicated that he would not press the amendment, and I hope that he will not.
	Amendment No. 67 is rather vague and, therefore, unhelpful. It may be difficult to define "interference". We entirely share the hon. Gentleman's aspiration that the buying and selling of fireworks is not confined to the period around 5 November.
	The amendment is not necessary because under clause 2(4) the Secretary of State is required to consult organisations and other people considered to have interests and to be affected by the Bill. Additionally, the Government are obliged in the regulatory impact assessment to consult extensively members of particular minorities when drawing up regulations, and we shall obviously ensure that all sections of the community are represented. I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for Gainsborough, whose concerns are similar to ours.

Christopher Chope: In the light of the Minister's explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5
	 — 
	Prohibition of Supply Etc. of Certain Fireworks

Amendment made: No. 66, in page 3, line 28, at end insert—
	'( ) Subsections (1) and (2) shall not apply to class I and class II fireworks.'.—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]

Clause 6
	 — 
	Public Fireworks Displays

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 56, in page 4, line 3 [Clause 6], at end insert—
	'( ) advanced notification of the time and place of the display has been given to the owners or recipients of land adjoining the site of the display'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 57, in page 4, line 9, leave out paragraph (c).
	No. 58, in page 4, line 29, at end insert—
	'( ) Nothing in this section shall apply to a display from which the public are excluded notwithstanding that it may be witnessed by the public.'.
	No. 59, in page 4, line 29, at end insert—
	'( ) Nothing in this section shall apply to a display which does not include the use of fireworks under category 4 of the British Standard Specification relating to fireworks published on 30 November 1988 (BS 7114) or any British Standard Specification replacing it.'.

Christopher Chope: These amendments deal with the issue of public displays. My hon. Friends may think that amendment No. 56 is far too regulatory and restrictive, as it requires that advance notification of the time and place of a display be given to the owners or occupiers of land adjoining the site of the display. The amendment uses the word "recipients" instead of "occupiers", but I am sure that that is a typo.
	A big mischief results from the antisocial use of fireworks when, for example, people let them off without thinking about their neighbours—that is even more true when there is a large, organised display. If they knew that fireworks were going to be let off, dog owners such as myself could put their dog inside and people who have a horse or pony, as my daughter has, could take appropriate precautions. Obviously, it is difficult to take such precautions if one does not know that an event is taking place. In our village, somebody's horse eventually died, I think, from injuries caused by problems with fireworks. Those problems could easily have been overcome if the person organising the firework display had thought of notifying their neighbours. That is the thinking behind the amendment.
	Turning briefly to amendment No. 58, the Bill does not cover displays that are not public. However, I am concerned that that may be interpreted as covering displays that may be witnessed by the public. Lots of members of the public, for example, may not be inside the enclosure. That is a nightmare for people organising fireworks displays, as they need income from paying visitors to pay for the fireworks. However, people sometimes find vantage points nearby and enjoy the whole event for free. If the public witness an essentially private fireworks display, that should not fall foul of the regulations.
	Amendment No.59 would restrict the application of the clause to fireworks displays that use fireworks under category 4, which we recognise as big public displays. Again, it is a reasonable measure to clarify, define and limit the application of the clause.

Melanie Johnson: The hon. Gentleman may have corrected the word "recipients", but it still appears in amendment No. 56, and he and I would agree that its meaning is unclear.

Christopher Chope: I raised the matter when I saw the amendments in draft on blue paper. The Clerk assured me that there had been a typographical error and that the word "recipients" would be replaced by the word "occupiers". I am sorry that that does not seem to have materialised on today's Order Paper.

Melanie Johnson: I am not sure where that leaves us for the purpose of the debate, although I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I accept the good intention underlying the amendment, but such a measure would be difficult to operate and potentially ineffectual. The owners of adjoining land in highly populated areas such as London could mean the owners of properties immediately around the perimeter of the display, but neighbours living just a few meters away or at the other end of a small road might be left out. It is difficult to see how the measure would be helpful to all those who might be affected, particularly because, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, public displays tend to be large and significant, and can be viewed from quite a wide surrounding area.
	I do not believe that the intention is to inform all residents within a defined perimeter, which would be difficult anyway, because of the cost to the operators. Fireworks displays generally are heavily subsidised. There is usually a promoter, who puts a substantial amount in. The proposed measure could oblige the organisers to notify thousands of residents. That might kill off public displays, which we all agree are in general a good thing. In the light of my reservations, I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendments.

Christopher Chope: Has the Minister given the House an assurance that the clause as drafted would not impact in the way that I fear, in relation to displays witnessed by the public from outside?

Melanie Johnson: The definition of a public display is set out in subsection (5), which clearly states that a fireworks display is one attended by the public or a section of the public, thereby precluding private fireworks displays on private land. If members of the public choose to watch their neighbours' garden display, that is an instance of "free riding", but we could not classify it as a public display.

Christopher Chope: I thank the Minister for that clarification. In the light of her comments, I shall seek leave to withdraw my amendment No. 56, but with this caveat: the Minister's Department is involved in public information, and it would be useful for the Department to encourage people who are organising public fireworks displays, particularly outside the usual season for fireworks and in rural areas, to notify their neighbours as a matter of good neighbourliness, to avoid some of the problems that have occurred in the past.
	Given the particular difficulties with my amendment, which has been printed differently from the way that I had intended, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9
	 — 
	Prohibition of Importation Etc. of Fireworks

Edward Leigh: I beg to move amendment No. 65, in page 5, line 33, leave out Clause 9.
	First, I am grateful to the Minister for accepting amendment No. 66, so that category 1 and 2 fireworks will no longer effectively be dealt with by the Bill. That is good progress.
	This is a probing amendment that seeks to determine why clause 9 is necessary. I accept that some extremely unpleasant and unsafe fireworks are being manufactured around the world, which we may not want here, but why cannot the Minister use powers provided elsewhere in the Bill and in earlier regulations to deal with such products? Why is it necessary to have a separate clause on imports? The Minister may be able to give a good reason.
	The Minister will also want to explain how the clause impacts on Europe and the single market. I am sure that the clause does not apply to imports from the EU. Bearing in mind what the Minister has said, there will probably be agreement throughout Europe on a decibel limit of about 120, so imports will presumably be on that basis. I am sure that the Minister will assure the House that clause 9 in no way militates against the free exchange of fireworks across the EU, which adds to competition and creates choice in a free market—all the things that we are in favour of.

Andrew Robathan: The clause is of immense importance and I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say. Many of the problems that are associated with fireworks are the result of some rather dodgy importers. My hon. Friends have improved the Bill and made some good points, but I would not wish to see the amendment carried.

Christopher Chope: I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the single market and on the issue of personal imports that was mentioned earlier. Is it envisaged that there should be restrictions on personal imports of fireworks? If people go to Calais or Boulogne and buy a case of fireworks, or fill up the back of their white van with fireworks instead of with booze, will they be restricted by the clause?
	My understanding of the thinking behind the clause was that something needed to be done to control the situation between the point where fireworks were imported, for example, Felixtowe docks, and the place where they were stored. If that is the mischief that needs to be addressed in regulations, I question whether prohibiting the import itself, or putting conditions upon the importer, is necessarily the right way to proceed. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Bill Tynan: I am concerned about removing the clause from the Bill because it serves a useful purpose. The industry is concerned about fireworks that, having been imported, do not go to a licensed storage place. The drivers therefore have no need to register that they are driving to a storage place and sometimes drive to a lay-by and split their load between perhaps 12 rogue retailers, who then sell the fireworks indiscriminately over three months. I think that the clause is essential if we are to deal with the rogue retailer who sells fireworks indiscriminately to anyone who will buy them, and with problems such as those that arose in my constituency over Christmas and new year, when category 4 fireworks were imported by the white van people, who were distributing and selling them in pubs.
	My concern is not about imports from Europe, as most imports—some 95 per cent.—come from China. On Second Reading, I pointed out that an application form for an import licence is a simple A4 document that is very easy to fill in and to submit to the Department of Trade and Industry. If somebody has £25,000 to spare, they can send a banker's draft to China and ask for a lorry load of fireworks, and there is no need to determine whether proper storage and licensed premises will be used. If the Minister uses the powers wisely, the clause will assist in eliminating many problems concerning antisocial use of fireworks.
	I hope that the amendment will not be pressed and that hon. Members will accept the difficulties that currently exist with regard to importation.

John Baron: I rise briefly to speak in support of clause 9, which I think is a very important aspect of the Bill.
	I was recently contacted by constituents about an unfortunate accident that occurred because of a poorly manufactured firework from the far east. Fortunately, there was no fatality, but an injury was caused. Any attempt to tighten up the situation to ensure that imported fireworks are of a certain standard is to be welcomed, as is any attempt to combat the illegal importation of fireworks and related problems of inadequate storage and supervision.
	I welcome the clause, notwithstanding the fact that, as ever, it is an open-ended and enabling provision and I am not quite sure what will result. Overall, I think that it should remain in the Bill and it will certainly receive my support.

Melanie Johnson: There is no single market in respect of fireworks and fireworks control, so the question of the single market is not an issue, as hon. Members have suggested.
	Importation prohibition is required if there is an intention to minimise the availability of banned fireworks and thus to ensure that the British public are not the victims of the white van sales described by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan). In most cases, the products sold in such circumstances are unsafe.
	Furthermore, I believe that the amendment would lead to a peculiar situation in which fireworks banned under the Bill and the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997 would be manufactured and stored in a country that prohibits them. That seems a very paradoxical outcome and I am sure that it is not intended.
	I request and hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Edward Leigh: This was a probing amendment and I think that we have had a reasonable debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10
	 — 
	Training Courses

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 63, in page 6, line 10, leave out clause 10.
	The amendment was inspired by the receipt late on Wednesday of the regulatory impact assessment on the Bill. The clause introduces a lot of regulation, requirements about training and so on. We probably know from our constituency postbags that some of these requirements impinge disproportionately on small businesses and shopkeepers—on the small business person, rather than the large multiple. If a butcher, for example, has to go on a training course, he has to find somebody else to run his shop. A little café in Highcliffe in my constituency recently obtained a licence to sell alcohol with meals, and the proprietor is required to go on a training course. He needs no training in something like that—he is a fit and proper person for the task. The requirement to go on a training course means that he will have to close his café or get someone in in his stead.
	My instinct that there is no evidence of a problem that needs to be addressed, particularly in the case of organised displays, was confirmed when I read paragraph 5.4 of the regulatory impact assessment, which states in respect of training of display operators:
	"There is no clear evidence of major incidence of death or serious injury caused by the use of fireworks by display operators. We do know that there have been occasional serious accidents in the past. But in the cases for which the Health and Safety Executive . . . have recent accident reports, there is still little clear evidence that the injuries sustained by members of the public were as a direct result of incompetence or the unprofessional use of fireworks."
	The assessment proceeds to point out that although there has been a sharp increase in the number of injuries from fireworks in general terms, the number of injuries sustained at firework displays has remained fairly static, dropping in 2000 to 119, from the 1998 figure of 132. In 2001, the figure rose a little.
	The important point is that we do not duplicate legislation. The regulatory impact assessment states that event organisers and display operators already have duties
	"under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the safety of members of the public, as well as their and others' employees. These duties would . . . require"—
	regardless of anything in the Bill—
	"operators to carry out a full site assessment; ensure that the equipment they use is suitable for the purpose; and ensure that they and their staff are competent and properly trained."
	The assessment also states:
	"The Health and Safety Executive . . . believes that the fireworks display industry has a generally very good safety record."
	Those are very important arguments for leaving things as they are and not introducing the very convoluted regulation contained in clause 10.
	We are almost getting into a mindset whereby we think that we should introduce a requirement for training, tests and so on through back-door regulation. We sometimes lose sight of the big picture, and the big picture in fireworks is that general safety would be improved if more people went to organised firework displays, rather than choosing to run them in their own gardens. Yet I suspect that if unamended, clause 10 would impose unnecessary and counter-productive burdens on those who are contemplating organising firework displays, add to their costs and encourage much smaller, unofficial firework displays. If the Minister has signed up to the regulatory impact assessment, why will she not carry through the logic of it and accept that we would be better off without clause 10?

Edward Leigh: I very much hope that when the Minister sums up, she will make it absolutely clear to the House that she does not intend to insist on introducing regulations to require training. As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) said, some people make it their business to provide public fireworks displays—incidentally, it is quite commonly retired or practising vicars who enjoy doing it; I do not know why. They are very responsible people. There is no evidence whatever that they are causing death or injury to themselves or anyone else. As my hon. Friend said, the Government's own regulatory impact assessment says in paragraph 5.4:
	"There is no clear evidence of major incidence of death or serious injury".
	Training takes up people's time, and it is not necessary. When my hon. Friend and I were discussing the Bill in the past two days, we both felt that it was important to drive this point home, and that we really did want an assurance from the Minister that she would not regulate to require training. If the hon. Lady will give us that assurance now, we shall be satisfied.

Melanie Johnson: Training is very important in some of these contexts. We would be neglecting our responsibilities in the House if we did not support the provision of training courses. The elimination of the entire clause, as proposed in the amendment, would leave no provision in the Bill to ensure safe and professional practice in the fireworks display industry. Displays do of course provide a safe way for people to watch and enjoy fireworks, but one reason why that is so is that people are highly trained and qualified to run such displays.

Christopher Chope: So what is the purpose of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974?

Melanie Johnson: That is a very general question to which I cannot respond in like terms.
	We would not wish to leave the supply of professional fireworks to those with little knowledge of their product. With products to whose supply and use a number of risks are attached, it is important that the Government should be able to ensure that the aims that we all agree are important under clause 2(1) and (3) are upheld and strengthened. An officially organised training course would ensure high standards while excluding the novice from such enterprises.
	I cannot comment on the relationship of this Bill with the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act because that is a large piece of legislation. I am happy to undertake to write to him, but I think it is very important that we provide for training. That training helps to ensure that people who handle the equivalent of explosives and set up displays and use or supply the product are appropriately qualified.

Edward Leigh: Of course people who run displays must be properly trained and do their job; no one is denying that. But the Minister is not suggesting, is she, that there is any lack of training at the moment? Is she saying that there are cowboys, not properly trained, who are moving around the country causing death or injury to people? If she is saying that, that entirely contradicts her own regulatory impact assessment. The training is taking place. It works. All that we want to hear from the Minister today is that she will not impose a set of new regulations requiring new training, which is plainly not necessary.

Melanie Johnson: Of course plenty of training is being done and some of that works well, and there are some highly professional people setting up displays; no one would question that. However, it would be a rash person who would assert that every such person had done everything that should be done, and had been properly trained. There are always cowboys out there.
	If the hon. Gentleman is seeking my assurance that we are not thinking of some radically bureaucratic system to impose on all those dealing with fireworks training of a very different character from that envisaged at present, I am sure that I can give him that assurance. However, the amendment would delete the clause full stop, and many hon. Members, including myself, find that unacceptable.

Christopher Chope: I am disappointed in the Minister's response. I read from the regulatory impact assessment—if the hon. Lady she had not read it before, I hope that she was listening—and paragraph 5.5 makes it clear:
	"Event organisers and display operators have duties under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974".
	It also says that duties under the existing law
	"require operators to carry out a full site assessment; ensure that the equipment they use is suitable for the purpose; and ensure that they and their staff are competent and properly trained."
	If operators' staff are not competent or properly trained, the operators are in breach of existing legislation—the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. The more the House tries to duplicate general legislation such as that Act, the more we undermine the responsibility we believe people should take for organising effective health and safety at work.
	The issue is close to my heart because I served on the Health and Safety Commission for so long. The Health and Safety and Work, etc. Act 1974 has stood the test of time, but it will not continue to stand the test of time if people who operate within its bounds are told that there must be duplication to comply with a fresh lot of regulations.

Andrew Robathan: I raised training courses on Second Reading. I am worried that people might be compelled to go on training courses that are frankly unnecessary, so what my hon. Friend says is broadly right.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful for the endorsement of my hon. Friend and the official Opposition. What he and I have said is in line with what my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) said on Second Reading:
	"We want more professional displays—we do not want to raise barriers to them—and I am not aware that there is a major problem with the safety of professional displays."—[Official Report, 28 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 485.]
	That is our position and it is why I shall press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 9, Noes 78.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before we proceed, may I remind the Tellers that the correct procedure is that, on reaching the Table, they should bow again to the Chair.

Clause 12
	 — 
	Enforcement

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 62, in page 8, line 15, leave out subsection (3).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 2.

Christopher Chope: This is a probing amendment, because this is the first chance that any hon. Member has had to find out what subsection (3) is about and why the Minister wants to keep it in the Bill. That is why I tabled the amendment and I look forward to hearing her response.

Melanie Johnson: I believe that I can help the hon. Gentleman considerably. The amendment would remove the limit on the disclosure of information under the fireworks regulations. The limit makes sense. It is imposed under the Enterprise Act 2002 and it means that only relevant parties will have access to certain information gained in relation to activities carried out under the Fireworks Bill and the subsequent regulations. It could be commercially damaging if anybody was able to demand that information be disclosed to him or her, and that is why the limitation is in place.

Christopher Chope: I thought that I would be easily satisfied, but the Minister is introducing a secrecy clause to prevent people from gaining access to information.

Melanie Johnson: Obviously, freedom of information legislation covers various aspects of disclosure, but the limit refers to information that might be commercially damaging, as I mentioned.

Christopher Chope: Can the Minister assure the House that the limit will be used only to withhold information that would be commercially damaging?

Melanie Johnson: I believe that that is its principal purpose. I am not sure that I can give the hon. Gentleman a cast-iron guarantee, but I can give him as close to it as I can get that it is my belief that the limit covers only commercial information. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman further on the issue, if that would be helpful.

Christopher Chope: Indeed, it would, and I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I hope that the letter she sends me will make it clear that the limit will be restricted to commercial considerations. The Minister has an amendment in the same group—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must advise me whether he wishes to withdraw his amendment, before I invite the Minister to put her amendment formally.

Christopher Chope: I thought that that Minister had not yet introduced her amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That was done as part of her earlier contribution. The amendment has yet to be made formally. I need to know first whether the hon. Gentleman intends to proceed with his amendment.

Christopher Chope: No, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule
	 — 
	Repeals and Revocation

Amendment made: No. 2, in page 10, line 15, at end insert—
	'Road Traffic Act 1974 (c. 50) Section 18.'.
	—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]
	Order for Third Reading read.

Bill Tynan: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I wish to thank everyone for the consensual nature of the debate on Report. When I saw that the debate was to take place on Friday 13 June, I was deeply concerned that yet another Fireworks Bill would not get through Third Reading. I wish to thank everyone who attended and participated in the debate. It seemed like a long time between Second and Third Readings, but circumstances dictated the delay.
	The safe passage of a meaningful Bill on the misuse of fireworks is long overdue. It is essential to have a proper debate on issues that are important not only to Members of Parliament but to the electorate in general. The choice is between passing the Bill and achieving a proper fireworks regime, or allowing continual misuse and abuse of fireworks. I am delighted that we have reached Third Reading, and I hope that the Bill will overcome this hurdle, too.
	This is an enabling Bill. Concerns have been expressed about the draconian provisions that could be introduced, but I believe that the guarantee of consultation with all interested parties is a sufficient safeguard. The Bill cedes only suitable powers to the Government and serves to approach the issues comprehensively.
	A number of recent events have shown that the fireworks issue remains topical. A professional footballer was recently sentenced to 100 hours of community service and ordered to pay compensation for disfiguring a teenager with an illegal firework. More disturbing events have occurred in Liverpool. Firefighters were called to a fire in a toy warehouse in Walton. The fire then spread to a neighbouring warehouse that was being used to store fireworks illegally. The roof was removed by the resulting blast, forcing firefighters to retire to a safe distance before they could eventually tackle the blaze. Even more disturbingly, those responsible for the illegal storage have not yet been traced.
	I have promised to be brief, because I understand that other Bills are awaiting safe passage through the House. I shall conclude my Third Reading speech on that note. This is not a killjoy Bill. It is a serious attempt to deal with the serious concerns of our constituents and of Members of the House. I trust that all hon. Members will support the Bill and I commend it to the House.

Andrew Robathan: I am glad to have heard what the hon. Gentleman said, and I congratulate him again on introducing the Bill. I am delighted that it is going from this House with a fair wind. We have always said that we supported the spirit of the Bill, although, if I am honest, we remain concerned about the Henry VIII provisions. No one likes giving the Government—and, perhaps more to the point, future Governments way down the line—powers that will not come back to the House, and they are indeed draconian powers.
	The discussion that we have had today, to which my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) have contributed, has been helpful. Some of the amendments that have been accepted were also helpful. The problem with private Members' Bills is that they sometimes do not have all the support that they might, although the present Bill has of course been supported by the Government. I wish the Bill well, and look forward to its successful passage through the House of Lords.

Vincent Cable: I would simply like to add a few words of support for the Bill and to congratulate the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan). He has not had to intervene very often today, but he has helped the Bill along in a way that I think most of us respected.
	At the core of the Bill is a dilemma: in many cases, fireworks give innocent pleasure, yet they can equally be associated with antisocial behaviour, noise and disruption. It is a question of getting the balance right. I was reminded of this on Monday evening, at the party to celebrate the 20th anniversary of our party leader's arrival at the House of Commons. The party was held in a big garden in Harrow, and it was rounded off by a firework display—the full works. Everyone thought it a thoroughly splendid occasion, but as we walked down the drive afterwards, burglar alarms were going off all over the place and dogs were howling. No doubt there were plenty of crying babies as well. So we saw at first hand both the positive and negative sides of the situation. That rather reinforced my view that the Bill is a useful corrective.
	I am very supportive of the Bill. I think that we all recognise the two principal reasons for it. One involves major legislative tidying up; the schedule shows that the hon. Gentleman is bringing together seven existing pieces of legislation and removing one past Act. The other is the importance of sending a clear signal to animal lovers and elderly people who are concerned about noise. Those are positive reasons.
	Some concerns—both of commission and omission—have been registered in relation to the Bill this morning. The worry on the commission side is that, in certain circumstances, the provisions could lead to rather bureaucratic and heavy-handed regulation. That needs some attention in the other place. On the omission side, the key controversy over the decibel limit was not addressed in the Bill, although it was addressed from the Floor by the hon. Member for Hamilton, South. That is the key issue for hon. Members on both sides of the debate, but the limit has not been specified.
	The other issue is enforcement. The success of this legislation will ultimately depend on whether sufficient numbers of trading standards officers and environmental health officers who have been sufficiently well briefed will be able to enforce the regulations at local level. That is what will determine whether the legislation will work. With those qualifications, I am very happy to support the Bill and to congratulate the hon. Member for Hamilton, South on having taken it so far.

Edward Leigh: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan). Private Members' Bills are delicate flowers, and they can be trampled underfoot in the parliamentary rush, but we are delivering this Bill to the hon. Gentleman with time to spare. We are grateful to him for the concessions that he has made today to make that possible. In particular, we are grateful to him for allowing us to incorporate the provision that the Bill will not apply to class 1 and class 2 fireworks, which are the ones that people use in their private homes and gardens. Above all, we have met the requirements of the fireworks industry, a reputable industry providing employment and much enjoyment. Its one fear was that when the Bill was enacted there would be no likelihood of the decibel limit being reduced from 120 to 95. That would have made it impossible to produce fireworks as we have known them throughout our lives.
	We have achieved our aims. An amendment will be moved in the other place. The Minister made clear that she did not object to the principle, but feared that dealing with the amendment would delay the Bill's progress. That will not happen. The Bill will, I am sure, become law, and it will be a better Act as a result of the work we have done this morning.
	1.50 pm

Christopher Chope: I endorse what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). I, too, thank the hon. Member for Hamilton, South for the co-operative and common-sense way in which he has approached the Bill. It is a pity that it was not considered in more detail in Committee: I think that there is a lesson to be learnt from that, and applied to other private Members' Bills. The Minister said on Second Reading that she expected this Bill to be considered in detail in Committee, but it was not, which is probably why today's debate took so much longer than it need have.
	We have established today that the Government, the promoter, the sponsors and the House do not want the decibel limit to be below 120. I am grateful to the Minister for her undertakings in that respect, and to the promoter, because the decibel limit has been the major concern. Until today an ambiguity has been built into our discussions, but we have now resolved the difference between those who wanted a 95 dB limit and those who wanted a limit of 120 dB. We have, I believe, decided in favour of common sense and a much more liberal regime than we would otherwise have had.
	We have achieved quite a lot today, although at greater length than some of us would have wished. I hope that in future there will be no need for such prolonged Report stages, because Bills will have been considered properly in Committee.

Melanie Johnson: I am pleased with the enthusiastic reception and positive co-operation that the Bill has been given and the progress that it has made so far. That includes what has been done today. I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on his excellent stewardship of the Bill. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) on her earlier work on the subject.
	As for what the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) said about his leader's birthday party, I trust that a focus leaflet will be published shortly saying that this issue will be addressed as a result of Liberal Democrat activity. This is the standard to which we have become used.

Keith Bradley: May I add some congratulations of my own? The Manchester Evening News has run an excellent campaign in support of the Bill, which I am sure helped to secure the Government's support.

Melanie Johnson: I, too, congratulate that newspaper, and the many other regional papers that have run similar campaigns which have increased support for the Bill.
	The Bill enables us to plug a serious gap. If fireworks are supplied in an irresponsible manner and are used thoughtlessly and irresponsibly, for many people "fun and joy" does not serve as an accurate description of the nuisance, fear and distress that can be caused. Some sections of the public want over-the-counter firework sales to be banned, while some go further and want fireworks themselves to be banned. As I have said, those are not realistic options and that is not the purpose of the Bill.
	The Bill gives us a solid base on which to build new firework regulations. They will not prevent individuals from buying and using fireworks in a responsible way; what the Bill seeks to minimise is the irresponsible supply and antisocial use of fireworks. It will allow us, for the first time, to produce firework regulations that will make sensible controls possible.
	The Bill has been supported by organisations of all kinds, including the fireworks industry. The British Fireworks Association, which represents the main firework-importing companies, and the British Pyrotechnists' Association, which mostly represents display operators, have supported it so far, and are keen for the industry to have a well-balanced body of legislation with which to comply. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed concerns. I trust that the hard work that has gone into the Bill this morning and on previous occasions means that the right balance will be struck. I wish the Bill a good passage when it reaches the other place.

Bill Tynan: With the leave of the House, I would like to place on record my thanks to everyone here, to the voluntary organisations, to the various individuals and to the press throughout the country who have supported the Bill. It is important that we recognise their contribution.
	There has been a genuine attempt this morning to deal with the issues of concern. I believe that we can allay the fears of hon. Members on both sides of the House and that the Bill will make a meaningful contribution to the control of the misuse of fireworks. I thank hon. Members again for their assistance.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Deceased Fathers) Bill

Order for Third Reading read.

Stephen McCabe: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	It is a pleasure to move that the Bill be read the Third time. I confess that I was anxious earlier that we might not have had this opportunity. I hope that there is such good will for the measure among hon. Members on both sides of the House that we will be able to use the time available economically and efficiently.
	I said on Second Reading that I did not believe that the issue was particularly contentious. I think that the debates on the Bill so far have tended to show that. I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House for their help and support for this small but significant measure. It is a short Bill with a simple purpose that is wholly compassionate. It will permit a man's name to be entered as a child's father on the birth certificate when the child has been born following fertility treatment after the man has died.
	The Bill is not deeply concerned with underlying philosophical and ethical fertility treatment issues. I recognise that they are very important issues for many people but this Bill seeks only to make a relatively simple change for the purpose of birth registration. The change proposed is symbolic only. It will not confer on the children any inheritance or other legal rights. Nevertheless, hon. Members will know of mothers, children and grandparents for whom this is a very important recognition. I pay tribute to the people who have campaigned long and hard on the issue.
	This is the second time that a Bill with essentially the same provisions has reached Third Reading in this House. I hope and believe that, as a result of the scrutiny to which the measure has been subjected, it has been significantly improved. Some straightforward amendments were made in Committee to allow additional flexibility where the mother cannot register the birth herself, perhaps due to the tragedy of death in childbirth, or serious illness leading to incapacity. As a result, the amended Bill is more in line with current registration practice. I proposed those amendments largely as a precaution. As I said in Committee, I hope that those circumstances will be extremely rare.
	I fully understand the issues that some hon. Members have raised about the Bill's retrospective provisions. That is hardly surprising as legislation is rarely made for retrospective purposes. In this case, however, I believe that it is right that the Bill should apply to existing as well as future cases. I hope that Members will be reassured that it does so in a way that sends an appropriate signal for the future, particularly in terms of the clear process that will have to be followed.

Eric Forth: I am not asking for an exact figure, but can the hon. Gentleman give us a rough idea of how many cases the Bill would apply to retrospectively? I suspect that it is a very small number, but it would be helpful to know even at this stage of the Bill's consideration.

Stephen McCabe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. As he rightly says, there is no way of coming up with an absolutely accurate figure. However, we believe that the provisions could apply to about 30 children, and possibly fewer. I hope that that makes the position clear.
	Fundamentally, the Bill represents a crucial opportunity for the House to put right earlier attempts to deal with such legislation. That is long overdue and, in reality, what we are doing is righting a wrong. The original intentions were never to prevent a father's name from appearing on a birth certificate. It is clear that the original architects of the Bill were concerned about inheritance and succession rights, and we can all understand that. All that I am seeking to do is ensure that the father's name appears on the child's birth certificate. That is a symbolic recognition; no issues of inheritance or succession are allowed. I commend the Bill to the House.

Chris Grayling: I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) on the way in which he has stewarded this Bill to Third Reading. It is obviously an evocative and sensitive issue, and he has managed it well.
	We know that the origin of the Bill is the situation that faced Diane Blood. However, as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, many children and families—we do not know exactly how many—have been affected by the circumstances that the Bill seeks to cover. It is right to say that the House would wish to do the right thing by those children. Therefore, Conservative Members have welcomed and supported the Bill right the way through the proceedings on it.
	I raised with the hon. Gentleman two concerns on Second Reading. I would like to put on record the way in which my concerns have been responded to. First, the hon. Gentleman has dealt well with the Bill's retrospective elements. They will not create an open-ended process for the future, but they acknowledge that some children today cannot, as a result of the lack of such legislation, have their position clarified. I am now comfortable with the Bill's retrospective elements.
	I also want to put on record my concerns about the proposed new section 28 (5D) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. I shall explain why I ultimately decided not to object to that. It allows an unmarried couple who have gone through fertility treatment using another man's sperm—the treatment may even have taken place outside the UK—to benefit from the provisions of the Bill. On reading that, my first thought was, "Hang on a moment. This is going a bit too far."
	The hon. Gentleman has set aside my concerns for two reasons. First, he pointed out that the provision is reflected in the existing human embryology legislation. It already exists in law. That is fine but my challenge to him was that, in cases covered by the existing legislation, the child would get to know the father, so there would be a bond between the father and the child. In a case in which the father had predeceased the child, that would not be the position. We had a long conversation about the matter and agreed that there are circumstances in which such a measure must be necessary.
	It is because of those circumstances that the hon. Gentleman has my support for that aspect of the Bill even though it causes me some anxiety. There may be cases in which, for example, a partner in a relationship, perhaps a marriage, is in a long-term coma from which he is unlikely to recover. If the other partner forms a new relationship but does not want to get divorced because of the particular circumstances, she may be caught up in the situation addressed in the Bill. That is an unlikely circumstance, but unlikely is not never. In such a situation, which would be brought about by tragedy rather than by personal choice, it is right and proper that we should acknowledge the rights of the child. For that reason, following my discussion with the hon. Gentleman, I am happy not to challenge new section 28(5D).
	The measure is welcome. It will right a wrong and is overdue. I am delighted that it has had such a smooth process through the House. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and all those who worked with him on their work. I wish the Bill well when it reaches another place and hope that it receives Royal Assent before too long.

Vincent Cable: I have not been involved in the Bill before. I simply want to put on record my colleagues' support for it and to congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) on promoting it. My hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) supported the original Bill when it went through the House.
	A key point, which has partly been covered, is that it is limited in both scope and scale. The scope is limited because it is confined to the one issue of a name appearing on a birth certificate. The scale is small because we are talking about 30 individuals. The estimate is that the measure could cover 10 additional babies a year. Presumably that could increase as technology develops. None the less, the Bill will have a limited scale of operation.
	It is fair to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) shared many of the concerns of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) about the retrospective element, but he, too, is reassured that the problem is largely resolved. We therefore support the Bill and wish it well.

Andrew Murrison: I also congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) on promoting the Bill. It is overdue and I wish it well. There are one or two mildly controversial aspects, in particular to do with the retrospective elements and written consent, which is a complex matter, especially if the man is incapable of giving it for one reason or another. However, I hope that the Bill has a speedy passage.

Tony Clarke: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) on his sterling job in stewarding the Bill through to this stage. It will have a significant impact on the lives of the individuals whom it is meant to support and help, both retrospectively and in the future. I can think of nothing worse than going through life without being able to right the wrong of not having one's father's name recorded on one's birth certificate. I wish the Bill a good and speedy passage, even at this late stage.

Eric Forth: In some ways, this is a model private Member's Bill. As has been mentioned, it is limited in scope and is, to use that ghastly modern term, focused. However, it does have complexities. I was gratified, not least given the earlier debate on the Fireworks Bill, that the Committee considered this Bill responsibly and saw fit to amend it. That is what Committees are for. Too often Bills, not least private Members' Bills, are ushered through Committee without proper scrutiny and run into difficulty on Report, which is what happened to the Fireworks Bill.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) on the Bill. It has been carefully considered and has drawn on the experience of previous attempts to deal with the problem, and rightly so. I wish it well, and I think that we can be confident that it will go through to another place.
	It is worth noting that the Bill has been brought about partly by the advance of technology. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a moment ago that technology often obliges us to react within the legislative framework, and that is certainly the case here. However, this is also a very human Bill; technology has had a bearing on people in the most difficult of circumstances, and the law has been unable to catch up until now, courtesy of the hon. Gentleman and his Bill.
	Although I have always been very unhappy about retrospective legislation, we have now to accept that, as with almost everything in life and in legislation, there will occasionally, of necessity, be exceptions to the principle. The principle of retrospectivity, or rather the lack of it, in our legislation has been built up over many centuries as a proper protection for the citizen. However, in this day, when so many things advance so quickly, we have to be prepared to make allowances, particularly when, as in this case, the number of people involved is necessarily small. It may increase, but only slightly, so we are not opening a floodgate or risking abuse. Almost by definition, there will only ever be a few people, in their very human family circumstances, affected by these advances, and in that case we can take a more relaxed view of retrospectivity. The hon. Gentleman had that in mind when he was framing the legislation, and we have all been prepared to take a positive attitude to that.
	All in all, the Bill is an intriguing mixture of the narrow, the focused, the technical and the retrospective. I am reassured on this occasion by the fact that the Standing Committee took its work seriously. I am, funnily enough, more reassured by a Bill returning to the House on Report that has been amended in Committee than by one that has not, because that tells me that the members of the Committee took their responsibilities seriously. They persuaded the promoter, and indeed the Government, that amendments were proper and appropriate. In that case we can take a more relaxed view of the Bill on Report. There is a message there for all concerned, not least future promoters of private members' Bills.
	I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on how he has managed to steer his Bill through the House thus far. I am confident that it will succeed on this occasion, and I wish it well in the future.

Hazel Blears: I am absolutely delighted to add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) on his excellent job in promoting a complex Bill involving many technicalities, both in technology and in the legal framework. I congratulate also my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke), who promoted an earlier Bill on the issue, which did not get to this stage. I know that he has long been a doughty campaigner on these issues.
	We all appreciate the need to be compassionate and to recognise that there are children and their families who find themselves in incredibly distressing circumstances. It is right for the House to try and respond while maintaining the integrity of our legal process. The Bill treads a fine line in balancing the needs of the children and their families with those of the legal process, the considerations of technology and some of our long-held principles, particularly those concerning retrospectivity. All of us, whether as lawyers or legislators, are always very nervous about the effect of retrospectivity.
	The Bill is an opportunity to make a real difference to the lives of those children and their families. In considering the Bill my concern is the rights of those children, their future and, I hope, their opportunity to have their father's name registered on their birth certificate. They find themselves in tragic circumstances. Not only do they no longer have a father, but they face the added distress of lacking legal recognition of their situation. That is why the families have campaigned long and hard on the issue. They have had excellent parliamentary representation, but we should not take away from them the fact that they have had the determination, tenacity and will to see the process through, despite the personal problems that they have faced. I therefore pay tribute to the families who have championed this cause.
	Hon. Members have said that the Bill is a symbolic recognition, and we have made it clear that it will not have an effect on inheritance and the rest of the legal framework. Although it is symbolic, it is important for the people involved, and I hope that it will be of great emotional value to the children as they grow up. I am also delighted that there is an opportunity in the parliamentary timetable to implement one of the recommendations in Professor McLean's review. When that review was completed, we said that we would legislate when parliamentary time allowed. Clearly, there is a tight legislative schedule, but I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green has managed to find parliamentary time to proceed with his Bill. There is one recommendation in the McLean review that remains to be dealt with, on the use of gametes that have been taken and put into storage. Again, that involves fairly technical circumstances. For example, a child may be unable to consent to having their gametes taken because they are in a coma, but they may well want to use them in the future. We still have legislative work to do in that narrow area, but I hope that we can make progress there too.
	I shared some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) when I first saw the legislation, which attempts to think about all possible eventualities. I am nervous of legislation that looks at hypothetical situations, because it can lead to unintended consequences that we may not have contemplated when we initially looked at the system. However, I am reassured that the provisions in the Bill do not simply mirror existing legislation. That is one good reason for doing something, but it is not always the whole story. If legislation mirrors existing provisions, it sometimes replicates problems as well as good measures. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell outlined a specific instance in which a couple, not married, undertook fertility treatment together but not using the man's sperm. There are a lot of "nots" in that equation, but such a procedure may have practical benefits.
	Amendments agreed in Committee dealt with similar matters. For example, a woman would have 42 days to register a birth. If there were circumstances in which she was unable to do so immediately, her children would not lose the benefit of having their father's name on their birth certificate. Those amendments had a narrow focus and dealt with something that might possibly happen in tragic circumstances. It was right that they were considered in Committee, as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said. They were properly formulated scrutinised and debated, and have improved the Bill.
	There has been complex discussion of the interaction of the Bill and human rights legislation. Hon. Members will know that there was a declaration of incompatibility between section 28 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 and article 8 of the European convention on human rights. That declaration was made some time ago in the courts, and was subject to the progress of this private Member's Bill. The judge who made it said that there was an incompatibility, but that he would stay proceedings pending the outcome of the Bill, which we consider remedies the incompatibility. We would only need to return to the possibility of introducing a remedial order under human rights legislation if the Bill did not make progress. That is another good reason why I am delighted that we have reached this stage in our proceedings.

Chris Grayling: If the Bill is to work, the clinics involved will be an important factor, whether in the NHS or not. They should make a point of drawing the measure to the attention of patients when they go for their initial treatment and say, for example, "In the event of the unthinkable happening, you need to get something down on paper." Can the Minister assure the House that the Department, in its communication efforts to the NHS, will make sure that that happens?

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I understand that it is already in the code of practice that consent in writing to all procedures is to be sought from people undergoing treatment. We are due to issue a revised form of the code of practice in the autumn, and we can ensure that that message is as strong as it can possibly be. It is good practice that consent is obtained. It is also good practice that people should think long and hard, and engage in proper discussion and deliberation about what might happen.
	The requirement in the Bill for written consent prospectively rather than retrospectively ought to enhance the possibility of further deliberation and discussion between partners about "what might happen if". I can give the hon. Gentleman the commitment that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which is responsible for such matters, will ensure that it is brought to the attention of NHS clinics, private clinics and clinics in the voluntary sector. It is an important aspect for us to be sure about.
	With reference to the human rights provision, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst raised the question of the class of people that we are dealing with, whether the commitment was open-ended, or whether it was a closed class of people so that we had a fairly definitive view of how many people might be affected. It is a closed class. In future people will need written consent, so the class of people that we are dealing with are those from 1991—after the 1990 Act was passed—up to the passage of the Bill. There will also be those whose sperm has been stored.
	The normal period for the storage of sperm is about 10 years, so for a period of years following the Bill there may be cases where sperm has been stored. That could extend the class, but it is still very limited and closed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green said, we think about 30 to 40 children are affected.
	Even within that closed class, I understand that the majority had written consent. What they might not have is written consent to having the name registered in the births and deaths registry. They may well have consent to the use of the sperm, but the Bill provides not only that consent is needed to the use of the sperm, but that the man must specifically consent to the fact that he will be registered as the father. It is important that that should be in the couple's contemplation. Even in the closed class of 30 or 40 individuals, many have written consent to the use of the sperm, so the effect will be marginal.
	We discussed whether there could continue to be human rights challenges even to the provisions of the Bill, because article 8 is engaged, and whether the court would hold that the Bill is a proper and proportionate response in human rights terms to the problem that has been identified, concerning the rights of the children and the possible rights to marriage and family life. We said previously that we could not prevent a legal challenge or pre-empt the judgment of the court, but the Bill serves three purposes.
	First, it makes sure that the requirement for written consent is clear. There was some debate about whether it was clear under the 1990 Act. Secondly, it serves a legitimate aim by encouraging discussion about the use of the sperm before procedures are undertaken. That protects the rights of donors. Thirdly and probably more fundamentally, it reflects the right balance between the interests of children, donors, families and society. It meets a pressing social need and is necessary in a democratic society.
	For those three reasons, we believe the law is defensible against any possible challenge under the human rights legislation, and I hope that we are in the process of making good, valuable, well founded and technically effectively law. It is always much more satisfying to all of us as legislators when we feel that we are meeting a situation with law that is not messy—that is not lazy legislation—but is designed to achieve the end upon which we are all embarked.
	The Bill is fairly short. It deals admirably with complex technical provisions. Above all, for me and for my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Hall Green and for Northampton, South, it will improve the lives of the children and families concerned, bring to an end the distress that they have suffered over a considerable number of years, and make a real difference to their future. I am tremendously grateful for the support of all Members of the House, including the Opposition, in giving the Bill a fair wind. I hope that we are able to bring it into law.

Stephen McCabe: I should like briefly to thank everyone who has given me help and support—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appreciate that the hon. Member simply wishes to pay tribute to those who have assisted him, but he should seek the leave of the House to speak again.

Stephen McCabe: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	With the leave of the House, I simply want to thank all those who have given me help and support in the preparation of the Bill, and I particularly thank hon. Members here today for their comments. I am also grateful for the welcome advice and assistance of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling).
	The Bill will help people who have already suffered tragedy and it is in the interests of the children concerned. Today we are doing something that we all came here to try and do at some time in our life.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Pensioner Trustees and Final Payments Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Jim Cunningham: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	I was quite taken aback to find that I would have four or five minutes to introduce the Bill. This is the second, not the first, time that I have brought it forward, but I hope that today I can generate support among hon. Members to take it further. However, before I attempt to do so, I should like to thank all those hon. Members who have supported me during those two attempts.
	The majority of the trade union movement supports the Bill. In particular, Derek Simpson, the new general secretary of the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union side of Amicus, and the general secretary of Amicus support the Bill. In addition, I must thank the Coventry Rolls-Royce retired members group, particularly the chairman and secretary, and the British pensioners group in Coventry, which, over the years, have provided tremendous support, not only for the Bill but in a number of other areas. I was quite surprised when, a couple of months ago, I attended a Rolls-Royce retired members meeting in Coventry, and roughly 400 people turned up on a Friday afternoon. That says something about the interest in and the need for the Bill.
	The Bill simply means that retired members can nominate and elect a trustee of the various pension fund schemes throughout the country. That person would have the usual role of a trustee, but would take a special interest in relation to decisions that could affect any benefits that the members would receive.
	We all know about the mis-selling of pensions, certainly under the previous Government, and I drew attention to that the last time that I spoke in the House a couple of weeks ago in the pensions debate. However, we must also recognise that two or three years ago the Government set up a new financial services regulator. That will obviously take time to have an impact, but one interesting statistic is that, in redressing some of the issues in that regard, about £11 billion has been paid back in compensation. That gives an idea of the magnitude of that problem.
	I know that the Bill is only one step in a particular direction. Pensions, occupational pensions and issues that affect old-age pensioners in general terms are a far bigger area than I can deal with today. Nevertheless, it must be addressed and it is vital that the Bill receives the support that is necessary for it to complete its passage. I do not have time to go through all the arguments, but I ask hon. Members to support the Bill—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
	It being half past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
	Debate to be resumed on Friday 11 July.

Remaining Private Members' Bills
	 — 
	GREENBELT PROTECTION BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [21 March], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Debate to be resumed on Friday 11 July.

COMPANY DIRECTORS (HEALTH AND SAFETY) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 11 July.

LOCAL COMMUNITIES SUSTAINABILITY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 20 June.

CROWN EMPLOYMENT (NATIONALITY) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 20 June.

REGULATION OF CHILD CARE PROVIDERS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 4 July.

DISABLED PEOPLE (DUTIES OF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [16 May], That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Debate to be resumed on Friday 11 July.

GOVERNMENT POWERS (LIMITATIONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 20 June.

HARBOURS BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 11 July.

CANCER SCREENING

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Joan Ryan.]

Vincent Cable: I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce an Adjournment debate on the rather broad issue of cancer screening, but my interest is somewhat narrow and is prompted by two considerations. The first is a constituency interest, as the leading bowel cancer charity is located in Twickenham. I met those at the charity recently, and they expressed their frustration about the fact that thousands of people die unnecessarily because the disease was not picked up sufficiently early. They urged me to do what I could at a political level to draw attention to a disease that is not particularly fashionable or that people enjoy talking about, but which deserves more attention, especially in respect of early detection and screening.
	The second reason why I feel motivated to raise this subject is a personal one. My wife died of breast cancer two years ago, and we lived with the disease for 13 years through all its stages. That left me with the very strong feeling that nobody should have to go through the same experience if at all possible. I am also left with a lingering doubt; although my wife was wonderfully cared for by the NHS, she was diagnosed in her early 40s. One is always left with the thought that, if there had been screening and early detection for women in their 40s, she might still be here. One is bound to have that thought in the circumstances.
	For those two reasons, I have a personal motivation for pursuing the issue. I approach it in a positive spirit. I acknowledge that in Britain, certainly in relation to breast cancer and cervical cancer, we probably have the most ambitious and long-standing, and arguably the most successful, approach in the world. That is certainly the British reputation and we must be proud of it, so I approach the matter in that upbeat spirit. One reason for that success is a general popular understanding of why screening is important—that screening leads to early diagnosis and early diagnosis saves lives; it is as simple as that.
	I was a little concerned to read a couple of months ago the conclusions of Professor Baum, one of the leading cancer specialists, who argued against cancer screening on the grounds that it raises anxiety and leads to what I believe are called in the trade "false positives": people who are falsely diagnosed with various forms of cancer, thereby leading to unnecessary operations. I hope that that has not led to confusion or doubt—certainly in the Government's mind—about the virtues and importance of cancer screening. It is important that public confidence be restored.
	Having made those general points, I want quickly to discuss the main cancer screening areas for which there are outstanding and important questions about Government policy, and to seek reassurance from the Minister. In many ways, the breast cancer programme is the best-established, best-understood programme. The mammography programme deals with some 1.3 million women a year aged 50 to 64. By common consent, it has a demonstrable and proven record in saving lives; indeed, there has been a sharp decline in mortality rates. In 2001, 13,000 women died of the disease, but that constituted a 20 per cent. reduction on the figure for a decade earlier.
	There are also some very simple comparisons that can be made. Of a sample of women diagnosed with breast cancer in the mid-1990s, 76 per cent. survived for five years. However, the rate for those who had been screened rose to 93 per cent. So over the years, some 80,000 cases have been detected and very many lives saved as a result of this programme. I appreciate that the Government have indicated that they are willing to extend breast cancer screening to 70-year-old women, thereby removing a rather arbitrary element of age discrimination, and that in the process they will make the tests more comprehensive and less liable to faults.
	I have three questions for the Minister on breast cancer specifically. First, as a result of research carried out in Sweden in particular, empirical proof has emerged in just the past few months that the lives of a substantial number of women in their 40s could be saved if screening were extended to them. Indeed, an article in the April edition of The Lancet reached a very strong conclusion to that effect. Are the Government aware of that finding, do they accept it and do they propose to act on it?
	The second question is a related one. There have been worrying reports that in some parts of the country, particularly in the London boroughs, the cancer screening programme had to be stopped—it happened last year—because there simply was not the personnel capacity to cope with the number of women involved. I seek some reassurance from the Minister that that problem will not recur, and that the capacity will be available to cope with the expanded numbers if we quickly move to including 70-year-old women. Indeed, if the programme is also extended to 40-year-olds, will the system be able to cope with such numbers? Will it be held back, if it is clinically necessary, by lack of capacity, personnel and equipment?
	My third question relates to a group of women who came to see me at my constituency advice surgery two weeks' ago. They had been diagnosed early—the system had worked—but they were extremely alarmed to discover that treatment was being very seriously delayed as a result of difficulties in getting appointments at, in this case, Charing Cross hospital. My understanding is that under National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines, nobody should have to wait more than a month for cancer treatment at any stage. However, one woman who had already had a mastectomy in one hospital and was referred for radiography at another was told that she would have to wait six months for that treatment—way beyond the NICE guidelines. I seek reassurance from the Minister that such incidents are extremely rare, and perhaps she could tell us how serious and widespread these slippages are. Of course, this issue does not relate to the screening programme, but it would be tragic if people's expectations were raised by good screening and diagnosis, only for it not to be followed up by appropriate treatment.
	My second set of questions relates to cervical cancer screening, which is an even bigger programme. As the Minister knows, it deals with 3.5 million women a year, from a much wider age group: 20 to 65. It has a clear scientific rationale, based on the fact that early detection in this area is crucial to cure and the evidence that has emerged from past work that something of the order of 1,000 lives a year are being saved specifically as a result of the smear test system—in other words, it is one of the great success stories of the NHS.
	However, there are several specific problems surrounding the programme. Seventeen per cent. of women who are entitled to screening do not come, mainly for sociological reasons—ethnic minorities and those from certain social classes—and many of these women die, needlessly because the screening is there. About 10 per cent. have to be recalled and experience all the anxiety associated with that. About 20 per cent. are simply missed because the test is not sufficiently accurate. Of those, there are significant numbers—perhaps half of the 1,200 who die every year—who were screened and passed, but were missed by the test. It is that inaccuracy which gives so much rise to so much anxiety and the necessity for moving on to improved technology.
	New technologies are available. The new liquid-based cytology has been extensively trialled and I believe is now available broadly in Scotland. A few weeks ago, I attended an all-day medical conference where the leader of that programme in Edinburgh described the efficiency with which that system now operates in Scotland. The simple question that I put to the Minister is, since it has now being extensively trialled and proven, appears to have few negative side effects and has positive outcomes, when will it be rolled out through England and Wales? When may we realistically expect comprehensive cervical cancer screening, using that new technology?
	The other question that I have on cervical cancer relates to the fact that some women report that their results are being seriously delayed. I have had anecdotal evidence of this and surveys suggest that 15 per cent. do not get their results within 10 weeks, which is way outside the guidelines. I should be grateful for some reassurance on that.
	The third category to which I wish to refer specifically is bowel cancer, which was where I started. There is increasing anxiety that it is growing rapidly. It has become the second cause of deaths among cancer victims; 35,000 a year are diagnosed, of whom 16,000 die. But there is now effective screening technology, and evidence from trial studies suggests that 2,500 of those who die could be saved if they were screened satisfactorily. I am delighted to read that the Government have now accepted that conclusion and are proceeding to a national screening programme. That is very good news. However, most of the people with whom I have discussed the subject—the action groups and those in the profession—are not sure how the Government's programme will work. Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to tell us as much as possible about how that screening programme will work, and particularly how long it will be—one year, two years or longer?—before most of the men and women who have anxiety on that score can be screened. Are the resources available? Are the nurses and specialists being trained for it?
	In conclusion I shall refer to two other types of cancer, in connection with which the screening process and the technology are less advanced, but where there is a growth of cancers and growing anxiety. One is prostate cancer. I was horrified to discover that by the age of 80, half of all men will have prostate cancer. Very few will die of it because they have other things, but obviously it is a major source of anxiety for any man, and it is a growing source of death.
	Tests are available. There is the prostate specific antigen test, but it is a very primitive testing system. Even the leading prostate cancer action group, the supporters of the charter for action, are not pressing for screening based on that technology because they acknowledge that it has major errors. Two thirds of all men show raised PSA levels when they are tested and 20 per cent. of men with prostate cancer are not picked up by the test, so it is an imprecise system. No one is currently calling for a national screening programme based on the test. None the less, there is a strong desire for the Government to do what they can to promote research on screening technologies and to advance the situation so that we are not quite as helpless in the face of the disease.
	My final comments relate to another woman's cancer: ovarian cancer. I know from women who have been affected by the disease that it is a growing source of anxiety because the death rate is so high. Only about 30 per cent. of women affected survive for longer than five years and the problem seems to be growing. There is a worry that the scanning process in the NHS is highly inconsistent. Some parts of the country have ultrasound equipment and actively encourage screening. Some parts of the country offer screening if it is sought, yet it is simply not available in some areas. That reflects the different distribution of resources and differences among health professionals about whether the procedure is useful. Will the Government give clear guidance on whether screening is useful? If it is useful, will there be a consistent approach in the NHS? That information would help the pressure groups and the general public. There seems to be much confusion and uncertainty, although research at Barts and in Cambridge may cast light on the situation.
	I have covered a wide spectrum from established programmes for cervical and breast cancers to programmes in which screening and research are at an early stage. The Government and the country can be proud of the programmes but much remains to be done. Enormous numbers of people are dying, but they might not do so if better technology were being better applied. I would be grateful for as much encouragement as the Minister can give me.

Hazel Blears: I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing the debate. The measures in the NHS cancer plan on early screening, early diagnosis and better treatment are beginning to be significantly beneficial in the field. We have a genuinely good story to tell about screening but there is also more to do to extend the programmes.
	Reducing the incidence of cancer is vital to long-term efforts to reduce cancer mortality. If we can screen early, we can reduce the number of deaths. Vigilance against the onset of disease is absolutely crucial. When screening is possible, it is an important method to detect abnormalities at an early stage, which allows treatment when the cancer is most likely to be curable or, in some cases, even before it develops. That is why the cancer plan proposes a major expansion of screening programmes that is absolutely based—this is not quite a caveat—on the fact that they should be used when it is clear that screening can reduce mortality. We want to use screening when there is evidence that it works and has a proper effect.
	The UK was the first country in the European Community and one of the first in the world to launch a nationwide breast cancer screening programme based on computerised call and recall services in 1988. Women aged between 50 and 64 are invited for breast screenings every three years and women aged over 65 may request free three-yearly screenings. In 2001–02, 1.3 million women were screened at an estimated cost of £52 million. More than 8,500 cancers were detected, many of which were small and could not be detected by hand because they had not developed into a lump. The breast cancer screening programme can help to save lives. We funded pilot studies that showed that extending screening to women aged between 65 and 70 is feasible and cost-effective.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether we might be able to extend screening to women under 50. The Forrest report, on which the whole breast cancer screening programme is based, recommended further research to assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of offering routine screening to women under 50, and that research is under way. The study began in February 1991. Recruitment to the trial has stopped, but 160,000 are now on it. It costs about £1 million to run, and looks primarily at mortality benefits. Interim results are expected late this year, with full results expected in 2005. We are extremely interested in using it to decide whether such a programme is feasible and cost-effective.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about work force capacity in breast screening programmes. I am delighted to be able to tell him that we have run several pilot programmes in trying to get a greater skill mix among the various professions involved and trying to ensure that radiotherapists and radiographers can perform tasks that previously only radiologists could perform. Those pilots have been evaluated, with an extremely successful outcome. Practitioners are now able to put markers on to X-rays to show where cancers are, and some are able to do basic radiotherapy. That frees up consultants to carry out the work that they should properly be doing, and perhaps which only they can do, and enables us to get more people through the programme. We have increased training places for radiographers by some 55 per cent. since 1997: we are getting more people into training, changing the skill mix and increasing capacity. I entirely accept, however, that there is tremendous pressure in this field, because as we get more equipment and do more screening, we create more demand, and rightly so. We need to keep on top of that.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about time between diagnosis and treatment. In the cancer plan, we said that it would be a maximum of one month for breast cancer. I can tell him that the latest figures that we have for 2001-02 show that 96.5 per cent. of women with diagnosed breast cancer received treatment within that month. I am pleased to reassure him that the example that he gave relates to a very small minority. Early treatment is absolutely key, especially after a diagnosis, because a great deal of distress and worry can be caused at that time.
	Moving on to cervical screening, the national computerised call and recall system was, again, introduced in 1988. Again, it was the first such programme. Women aged 20 to 64 are invited for a free cervical screening test every three to five years, and women aged over 65 are invited for screening if their previous two tests were not clear or if they have never been screened. In 2001–02, 3.9 million women were screened in England. Research has shown that death rates from cervical cancer fell by 43 per cent. between 1988 and 1997. Lives are being saved by the screening programme.
	On 6 June 2000, we announced that we would pilot the introduction of new technology—liquid-based cytology, or LBC, along with the use of human papilloma virus, or HPV, testing—as part of the NHS cervical screening programme. LBC techniques offer a new way to prepare cell samples for examination in the laboratory. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence has suggested that introducing LBC could increase the sensitivity of slides, reduce the number of inadequate screening tests—an area of concern—and improve the speed with which slides can be read. The report of the independent evaluation has been sent to NICE, and final appraisal guidance is due in August. If that is positive, LBC techniques will be introduced across the NHS in England, as promised in the NHS cancer plan.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned that the system is being adopted in Scotland. Obviously, it will be a much bigger programme in England and Wales if we decide to adopt it nationwide: there will need to be a phased transition in terms of work force capacity and changes in laboratories. We are working with the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency to examine ways in which we can procure the new technology in a cost-effective way to ensure that a programme can be established across the country, if that is what NICE recommends in its final guidance.
	HPV is a group of more than 80 viruses that are known to be implicated in 99 per cent. of cases of cervical cancer, but in most women those viruses are cleared naturally by the immune system. The HPV arm of the pilot study tests women if they have a mild or borderline screening test result. That evaluation report is due this autumn. As yet, there is no evidence to support the use of HPV as a primary screening tool.
	Professor Henry Kitchener, at St. Mary's hospital in Manchester, is co-ordinating a study to investigate whether it could be used in that way in the future. The study began in January 2001: it will take six years, involving 28,000 women, and we are keen to press on with it.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned bowel cancer, which he is right to say has not received a huge amount of attention in the past, partly because of the difficulties we have in talking about the subject. It is the second largest killer, with 14,000 lives lost a year, so it is an important area for us to concentrate on. We now have breast and cervical cancer screening programmes, and we are sometimes accused of being sexist, because there are no screening programmes for cancers that affect men. In men's health week, I should like to put it on the record that we are absolutely not sexist. We want screening where it is effective: evidence is key. One area where evidence is increasingly good is in relation to colorectal and bowel cancer.
	In a speech to the Britain Against Cancer conference in November last year, the Secretary of State reaffirmed his commitment to introduce a national screening programme for bowel cancer for both men and women, and the national cancer director, Professor Mike Richards launched the programme on 4 February this year. There are three main strands: developing the screening programme, streamlining the care for patients who already have symptoms, and improving treatment.
	One important subject of current debate is the best screening methodology to adopt. Much research and discussion is taking place about the respective merits of faecal occult blood testing and flexible sigmoidoscopy. In order to take that forward, the screening working group will examine those complex issues and make recommendations about the most appropriate way to make progress. The faecal occult blood testing has a research base, but flexible sigmoidoscopy is becoming increasingly important as a good way of detecting cancer.
	On prostate cancer, we are committed to introducing a screening programme if and when screening and treatment techniques are sufficiently well developed. Trials have shown that there is no conclusive evidence from any country that screening for prostate cancer would reduce the death rate, which is our objective. The prostate-specific antigen test, a blood test, is not always accurate. Some men with high PSA will not have prostate cancer, and some with low PSA will have prostate cancer. There is also no clinical consensus on the best way to treat prostate cancer. We need more serious and extensive research in that area—exactly what we are doing. We are on target to spend the promised £4.2 million on research into prostate cancer this year—something like a 20-fold increase on the research carried out in previous years.
	However, the fact that there is insufficient evidence for a screening programme does not help men who are worried about prostate cancer, which is why we introduced the prostate cancer risk management programme. Those who go for a PSA test should have good information about the benefits, limitations and risks associated with that test. Evidence-based resource packs were sent to all general practitioners in September last year. They included information leaflets for patients, and doctors were encouraged to have discussions with their patients when they seek the test and ensure that they have the fullest information available to them.
	The hon. Gentleman also mentioned ovarian cancer screening. As more technology becomes available, more screening will be a possibility. The health technology assessment programme has undertaken a systematic review of the evidence for introducing ovarian screening. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to reach a firm conclusion, but the UK collaborative trial of ovarian cancer screening began in 2000. About 200,000 post-menopausal women aged between 50 and 74 are being randomised in 12 UK centres. Half the women will be screened, either by annual blood test or annual trans-vaginal ultrasound, with the remainder as the control group. The study is funded by the Department of Health, the Medical Research Council and Cancer Research UK. It is expected to cost some £20 million and will continue until 2010. We are keen to examine further evidence on ovarian screening, which, as the hon. Gentleman said, is an increasing problem and rightly a proper matter of concern.
	We are also examining the possibility of lung cancer screening. Recent research has shown that low-dose spiral computer tomography scanning can identify lung cancer in asymptomatic individuals at high risk. That suggests that CT scanning might be a useful screening test for lung cancer. The outcomes for lung cancer are very poor indeed in terms of five-year survival rates, so screening could be useful there.
	Finally, I should like to emphasise that no screening programme is perfect. Those who seek it need to understand the potential benefits and limitations, and then make informed choices about them. That is why we said that we would produce national leaflets. We have done so for breast and cervical screening, and they are sent out to all women who take part in the programmes. It is important—in every area of health care, not just in screening—that patients are able to participate in the decisions about their health and feel some ownership of the process of managing their own clinical conditions.
	I am delighted that we have had the debate today, and wish to place on record my personal thanks to all the staff who are involved in the screening programme. They work incredibly hard and do a fantastic job. They have contributed enormously to the good health of thousands of people in this country, and they have helped to save lives, too.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at Three o'clock.